|
Archives: November 2008
TELL PRES-ELECT OBAMA TO CLOSE THE SOA/WHINSEC BY EXECUTIVE ORDER
We need a new direction in U.S. foreign policy and we need to make sure Barack Obama is going to issue an executive order that will close the School of the Americas (SOA/WHINSEC), a U.S. taxpayer funded military training school for Latin American soldiers, that has been connected with countless human rights abuses throughout Latin America.
That's why IFCLA just signed the petition and sent a personal message to President Barack Obama.
Will you add your voice to mine?
http://www.soaw.org/petition
Thanks so much for standing with me and helping to close the School of the Americas (SOA/WHINSEC).
More...
[0] comments (324 views) | link
COLOMBIA: La Minga: Colombian Indigenous Peoples March Toward Bogota
By Kim Lamberty, Sandra Rincon, and Chris Knestrick
Thousands of representatives of Colombia's indigenous peoples have been mobilized and marching since October 10. The mobilization, called "La Minga" began in the Cauca region of Colombia, home to many of Colombia's indigenous peoples. "La Minga" means a gathering of all the peoples, and indigenous leadership only call for it when something very important needs to be addressed.
Indgienous communities, who live on traditional, ancestral lands which are communally owned, are protesting, among other things, a government decision to charge them taxes on their lands. They are protesting the privatization of the sources of the waters located in their territories. Privatization has led to contamination of their waters as a result of resource exploitation by large, multinational companies. And they are protesting governmental failure to honor past agreements signed with indigenous peoples.
Shortly after La Minga began in mid-October, the Colombian police opened fire on the marchers which resulted in a number of injuries, some of them serious. Since then, the group, which consists of representatives of most of the indigenous peoples in Colombia and their national leadership, "Walking the word"*, has marched through Colombia, with plans to end in Bogota this week. The marchers say they are peacefully exercising their rights to social and civil resistance. They are currently camped in the Bogota suburb of Soacha. See pictures in http://cpt.org/gallery/La-Minga%3A-Caminando-la-Palabra or Minga
CPTers Sandra Rincon, Kim Lamberty, and Chris Knestrick have been accompanying the march since Sunday, November 16. They will stay with the march in Bogota and until it ends. For more information about Colombia's indigenous peoples, please go to www.onic.org.co
[0] comments (302 views) | link
EL SALVADOR: Spanish Human Rights Organization Files Suit Against ex-president Cristiani and 14 others for involvement in Jesuit massacre of 1989
As Salvadorans prepared to commemorate the 19th anniversary of the Jesuit massacre, a major development related to the perpetrators of that crime occurred. The Association for Human Rights in Spain (APDHE) with the support of the San Francisco-based organization Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA) has filed a criminal complaint with the Spanish High Court against former president of El Salvador Alfredo Cristiani Berkard and 14 former members of El Salvador’s armed forces for the murder of 6 Jesuit priests, their housekeeper, and her daughter on November 16 of 1989 by the US-trained and equipped Atlacatl Battalion. The complaint will now go before the Spanish High Court who will decide whether to press charges against and seek the extradition of Cristiani and the 14 former military officials and soldiers for trial. The APDHE and CJA confirm that there is sufficient proof including eye-witness accounts and government documents to prove the guilt of those charged.
Regarding the charges against Cristiani, current president of El Salvador Tony Saca of the ARENA party said, “Definitively, president Cristiani had absolutely nothing to do with this,” and added, “we are with him and support him, and we will support him until the last moment because he is an historic man for our country.”
The 1991 trials and convictions in El Salvador of two military officers for the massacre of the Jesuits was followed up by a 1993 Amnesty Law—granting amnesty to crimes committed during the Civil War—and the officers’ release. The Spanish criminal complaint brings hope that justice will be brought to the victims of the murders, massacres, and human-rights abuses committed by the US-backed and US-funded Salvadoran military and death squads. It also brings hope that a renewed effort to do away with the Amnesty Law could bring justice to the countless victims of crimes and human rights abuses here in El Salvador.
More...
[0] comments (340 views) | link
NICARAGUA: Write Washington Post about Editorial on Nicaragua!
In an editorial reminiscent of those it published in the 1980s, on Sunday Nov. 15, the Washington Post's editors called for the cut-off of $175 million Millennium Challenge Account poverty reduction aid to Nicaragua. If the Washington Post, otherwise known as "The State Department's Newspaper" is calling for a cut-off of aid, we can be certain it is already under active consideration in the Bush administration.
It is important that we respond to the newspaper and contact our elected representatives before it is too late.
Send your letter to the Editor of the Washington Post to letters@washpost.com For increased chance of publication it should not be longer than 200 words. You should include your name, address, phone number and a statement that you have not sent the letter to other publications.
Some talking points:
1. The United States should not cut off aid to Nicaragua. It still owes Nicaragua an estimated $17 billion in reparations after being found guilty by the World Court in 1986 of violating international law by initiating the contra war and mining the harbor at Corinto.
2. The Ortega government is doing good things with aid from the United States. US Ambassador Callahan just announced a $5 million grant for Project Love, the government's campaign to end child labor and praised its work. This week's news includes a report about the Millennium Challenge Account funding for 5,000 acres of reforestation in the Department of Chinandega in collaboration with the government. These programs provide needed benefits to the Nicaraguan people.
3. Other Nicaraguan government programs are showing results. Illiteracy has fallen below 10% in the past 2 years due to literacy programs and the reinstitution of free public education. Health care is accessible again, free to all. Zero Hunger and loans to small and medium farmers has decreased hunger and revitalized the agricultural sector.
As for some of the points made in the editorial:
There were international observers at the Nov. 9 municipal elections from respected groups of officials from Latin American electoral councils. The three teams of high level experts reported seeing no instances of fraud.
The opposition should pursue its claims of fraud through the available legal mechanisms rather than exclusively in the media.
The integrity of Nicaragua's elections is insured, just as it is in the United States, by the presence in each polling place of each party's poll watchers who also witness the vote count.
US favored Managua mayoral candidate, Eduardo Montealegre, was not favored to win. An independent and respected polling company-CID Gallop-put him five points behind the FSLN candidate, former world boxing champ, Alexis Argüello, a week before the election.
While, sadly, there has been post-election violence on all sides, the right wing Constitutional Liberal Party (PLC) initiated it, injuring several people including a Sandinista radio reporter who was stabbed and whose car was torched.
The Supreme Electoral Council is an independent branch of government. It has three Sandinista representatives, three PLC representatives, and the chairman is affiliated with no political party. It certified the results of the 2008 municipal elections.
Montealegre presented discrepancies in only two precincts out of 2,200 in Managua to support his claim of fraud.
An official recount in Managua confirmed the victory of the FSLN candidate Arguello.
More...
[0] comments (288 views) | link
Over 360 Latin America Experts Call on Obama to Improve U.S.-Latin American Relations
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 28, 2008
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Anticipating a democratic victory in the November 4 presidential elections, 368 academics specializing in Latin America recently sent a letter urging Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama to become a partner, rather than an adversary, concerning changes already under way in Latin America. Above all, the signers are asking Senator Obama to understand the current impetus for progressive change in many of the region's countries: the rejection of the failed "free-market" model of economic growth that has been imposed in most countries since the early 1980s - a period which has seen the worst economic growth failure in the region, in terms of per capita GDP, in over a century -- and the adoption of more socially just and environmentally sustainable development styles.
The signers expressed their hope that an Obama administration will embrace the opportunity to inaugurate a new period of hemispheric understanding and collaboration for the welfare of the entire Hemisphere.
Most of those signing are members of the Latin American Studies Association, the largest and most influential professional association of its kind in the world. Signers include Eric Hershberg, President of the Latin American Studies Association (LASA) and twelve LASA Past Presidents, along with over 350 other academics and Latin America experts.
The letter follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 20, 2008
Dear Senator Obama:
We write to offer our congratulations on your campaign and to express our hope that as the next president of the United States you will take advantage of an historic opportunity to improve relations with Latin America. As scholars of the region, we also wish to convey our analysis regarding the process of change now underway in Latin America.
Just as the people of the United States have begun to debate basic questions regarding the sort of society they want-- thanks in part to your own candidacy but also owing to the magnitude of the current financial crisis-- so too have the people of Latin America. In fact, the debate about a just and fair society has been going on in Latin America for more than a decade, and the majority are opting, like you and so many of us in the United States, for hope and change. As academics personally and professionally committed to development and democracy in Latin America, we are hopeful that during your presidency the United States can become a partner rather than an adversary to the positive changes already under way in the hemisphere.
The current impetus for change in Latin America is a rejection of the model of economic growth that has been imposed in most countries since the early 1980s, a model that has concentrated wealth, relied unsuccessfully on unrestricted market forces to solve deep social problems and undermined human welfare. The current rejection of this model is broad-based and democratic. In fact, contemporary movements for change in Latin America reveal significantly increased participation by workers and peasants, women, Afro-descendants and indigenous peoples-- in a word, the grassroots. Such movements are coming to power in country after country. They are neither puppets, nor blinded by fanaticism and ideology, as caricatured by some mainstream pundits. To the contrary, these movements deserve our respect, friendship and support.
Latin Americans have often viewed the United States not as a friend but as an oppressor, the guarantor of an international economic system that works against them, rather than for them-- the very antithesis of hope and change. The Bush Administration has made matters much worse, and U.S. prestige in the region is now at a historic low. Washington's tendency to fight against hope and change has been especially prominent in recent U.S. responses to the democratically elected governments of Venezuela and Bolivia. While anti-American feelings run deep, history demonstrates that these feelings can change. In the 1930s, after two decades of conflict with the region, the United States swore off intervention and adopted a Good Neighbor Policy. Not coincidentally, it was the most harmonious time in the history of U.S.-Latin American relations. In the 1940s, nearly every country in the region became our ally in World War Two. It can happen again.
There are many other challenges, too. Colombia, the main focus of the Bush Administration's policy, is currently the scene of the second largest humanitarian crisis in the world, with four million internally displaced people. Its government, which criminalizes even peaceful protest, seeks an extension of the free trade policies that much of the hemisphere is already reacting against. Cuba has begun a process of transition that should be supported in positive ways, such as through the dialogue you advocate. Mexicans and Central Americans migrate by the tens of thousands to seek work in the United States, where their labor power is much needed but their presence is denigrated by a public that has, since the development of opinion polling in the 1930s, always opposed immigration from anywhere. The way to manage immigration is not by building a giant wall, but rather, the United States should support more equitable economic development in Mexico and Central America and, indeed, throughout the region. In addition, the U.S. must reconsider drug control policies that have simply not worked and have been part of the problem of political violence, especially in Mexico, Colombia and Peru. And the U.S. must renew its active support for human rights throughout the region. Unfortunately, in the eyes of many Latin Americans, the United States has come to stand for the support of inequitable regimes.
Finally, we implore you to commit your administration to the firm support of constitutional rights, including academic and intellectual freedom. Most of us are members of the Latin American Studies Association (LASA), the largest professional association of experts on the region, and we have experienced first-hand how the Bush administration's attempt to restrict academic exchange with Cuba is counter-productive and self-defeating. We hope for an early opportunity to discuss this and other issues regarding Latin America with your administration.
Our hope is that you will embrace the opportunity to inaugurate a new period of hemispheric understanding and collaboration for the common welfare. We ask for change and not only in the United States.
Sincerely,
SIGNED:
More...
[0] comments (300 views) | link
SPEAK UP FOR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS IN EL SALVADOR!
Call or write your US Representative and ask him or her to sign onto a Dear Colleague letter in support of free and fair elections in El Salvador. The letter is being circulated by Congressmen Jim McGovern (MA) and Dennis Moore (KS), and the staff contact person is Cindy Buhl in Congressman McGovern's office. The letter is currently in circulation in the House of Representatives and signatures will be collected throughout the month of November. Below is a list of talking points to include in your message:
With the upcoming Municipal, Legislative Assembly, and Presidential elections that will take place in El Salvador on January 18th and March 15th, 2009, I believe the United States can help ensure that the 2009 Salvadoran elections are free, fair, and conducted under the most transparent conditions.
According to Salvadoran public opinion polls, 54.4% of the population has little or no faith in the 2009 electoral process, and 55% predict fraud in the upcoming elections.
These will be the most fiercely contested elections in Salvadoran history because the opposition party is leading in public opinion polls, which could lead to changes in long-established patterns of political control.
I respect the Salvadoran people's sovereign right to choose their leaders, and I believe the US State Department should encourage the Salvadoran government to:
Encourage domestic and international observation of the entire electoral process;
Urge political parties to stop the use of deceptive or misleading advertising that aims to sway voters' decisions based on fear and misinformation; and
Carry out a comprehensive investigation of acts of political violence in the period leading up to elections, on Election Day, and during the post-election transition period.
Presenting these points to your representative will express to them the importance of supporting democracy and free and fair elections in El Salvador.
To contact your representative, call the US Capitol Switchboard at 202.224.3121, or click here to write your representative an email. Feel free to use the sample email below as a guide.
For more information, contact Michelle Petrotta at michelle@share-elsalvador.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Representative ______________________:
As a constituent of your district, I am asking you to sign onto Congressmen Jim McGovern's (MA) and Dennis Moore's (KS) Dear Colleague letter that you should have received during the last week of October. The letter is addressed to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, asking her to encourage the Salvadoran government to:
Encourage domestic and international observation of the entire Salvadoran electoral process;
Urge political parties to stop the use of deceptive or misleading advertising that aims to sway voters' decisions based on fear and misinformation; and
Carry out a comprehensive investigation of acts of political violence in the period leading up to elections, on Election Day, and during the post-election transition period.
If you have not yet signed onto the letter or have questions, please contact Cindy Buhl in Representative McGovern's office. Thank you for your dedication to democracy around the world, and I hope you seriously consider signing onto the letter in support of free and fair elections in El Salvador.
Sincerely,
Your Name
Address
[0] comments (296 views) | link
IMMIGRATION: Emanuel's Political Pragmatism on Immigration Reform
Obama's selection of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff signals that political pragmatism, not campaign promises to Latinos, may determine immigration policy in the new administration.
It's not that Congressman Emanuel (D-IL) is a foe of immigration, but rather that he seems to have concluded that comprehensive immigration reform is not a winning political proposition for Democrats.
As Illinois congressional representative since 2003, Emanuel has repeatedly held the line against the immigration restrictionists and border security hardliners. For the restrictionists, he has a failing record.
During his first year in Congress, the Federation for American Immigration Reform gave Cong. Emanuel (D-IL) a 0% rating, with the number reflecting the percentage of time that Emanuel voted FAIR's preferred position. Other restrictionist organizations that track congressional votes agree with FAIR's assessment that Emanuel is irredeemably liberal when it comes to immigration reform.
NumbersUSA, the organization that spearheaded the grassroots mobilization against the Senate's 2007 immigration reform bill, gives Emanuel a failing lifetime position. He flunked the NumbersUSA test, receiving an "F" on his "immigration-reduction report card." U.S. Border Control—another restrictionist group—gave Cong. Emanuel an 8% rating, citing his "open-border stance."
In other words, Emanuel, picked to exert control over Obama's team and its policy agenda, is about as bad as you can get if fighting immigration is your central concern. He cosponsored the McCain-Kennedy reform proposal, voted "no" on building a border fence, and even cast a "no" vote on a bill that would require hospitals to notify immigration agents when treating illegal immigrants.
But immigration restrictionists aren't particularly worried. That's because Emanuel, after the drubbing that immigration reform received in mid-2007, let it be known that the Democratic leadership in Congress wouldn't be pushing comprehensive reform in 2008—or anytime in the first term of the next administration.
Calling immigration the "third rail" of American politics, Emanuel began backing away from comprehensive reform in 2007, even as he continued to oppose overly restrictive immigration and border bills.
Emanuel has come under fire from Latino columnist Ruben Navarrette for keeping immigration reform off the table this year. "House Democrats, under orders from Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-IL, kept the controversial issue off the legislative agenda in 2008. Why? Organized labor. Democrats' slavish adherence to unions required that they derail any proposal that includes guest workers, as any bill with a chance to win Republican support would have to do," wrote Navarrette.
The San Diego Union-Tribune columnist also took the opportunity to criticize Sen. Obama for having "supported a series of 'poison pill' amendments intended to weaken guest-worker provisions and drive away Republicans. Obama even proposed one such amendment himself." Navarrette's opinion that it was really the Democrats, not the Republicans, that killed comprehensive reform in 2007 has been widely challenged but echoed by Sen. McCain in a Spanish-language ad during the presidential campaign.
Obama is against these programs for the most part as are not just unions but also progressive immigrants and immigrant-advocacy groups, who argue that they create an underclass of workers, eroding their civil and labor rights. More conservative Latino organizations and the Bush administration strongly support the concept, as do many Democratic congressional members. This is one of the main reasons Emanuel and others view immigration reform as so difficult.
At the annual convention of the National Council of La Raza, Juan Salgado, board chairman of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, shocked participants, stating: "Congressman Rahm Emanuel said to me two weeks ago, there is no way this legislation is happening in the Democratic House, in the Democratic Senate, in the Democratic presidency, in the first term."
Emanuel's office confirmed the congressman's statement and his assessment of the political realities concerning immigration reform. Emanuel's spokesman Nick Pappas told the Washington Times: "Congressman Emanuel has worked hard to make comprehensive reform a reality and that work continues. However, President Bush and congressional Republicans' failure on this critical matter has set back efforts to enact real reform."
In turn, Salgado said, "I was caught off-guard by the statement. I interpret his comments as a lack of courage on what they know is right. Listen, we're here at the NCLR conference, and what it's going to take is not the attitude of Rahm Emanuel. What it's going to take is boldness by the president."
On the night of his victory, President-elect Obama told Americans and the world that his electoral triumph demonstrated that "all things are possible" in America.
But comprehensive immigration reform is one of the things that just may not be possible given the rabid opposition of grassroots restrictionists, the still-sizable Republican opposition, the strength of "moderate" Democrats, and the lack of political will among liberal Democrats. Not during the campaign or in his short career in the Senate has comprehensive immigration reform been a priority for Obama, and it likely won't be a priority as president, despite a July promise at the National Council of La Raza convention to tackle the issue.
"I think it's time for a president who won't walk away from something as important as comprehensive reform just because it becomes politically unpopular," the then-presumptive party nominee said. "I will make it a top priority in my first year as the president of the United States of America."
But with the nation facing rapidly rising unemployment, immigration reform may be pushed back deep into a second term.
On election night Obama warned supporters at Grant Park in Chicago that with the nation facing the challenge of two wars and an economic downturn, his decisions wouldn't be popular with everyone. " The road ahead will be long," he said. "Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there."
With respect to immigration, immigrant advocates are expressing hope that immigration reform will be possible and that the nation will get there soon—in the first term or even in the first year.
What's particularly worrying, though, is that the stasis that now defines immigration policy may allow the enforcement-only regimen instituted so forcefully and thoroughly by the Bush administration and his homeland security department to remain the order not just for the next few months but for the next four years or more. Even worse, given that Obama has supported the building of the border fence and a strong employee verification policy, immigration enforcement may actually deepen.
In the absence of a bold initiative by the Obama team to stop the raids and assert its determination to "bring people out of the shadows," as the Obama-Biden campaign promised, it's possible that an "enforcement-only" immigration policy will continue to do its dirty work for some time to come.
What's certain is that the road ahead for the pro-immigration camp and immigrant advocates will be long, and the climb to immigration reform very steep indeed.
Tom Barry directs the TransBorder Project (http://sites.google.com/site/transborderproject/) of the Americas Policy Program (www.americaspolicy.org) at the Center for International Policy in Washington, DC. He blogs at http://borderlinesblog.blogspot.com/
More...
[0] comments (309 views) | link