El Salvador: "Mockery Of Democracy"

Last month Salvador Sanabria, a spokesperson for the FMLN/FDR, the Salvadoran rebel organization, was in Ann Arbor as part of a Midwest speakingtour. Sanabria is an advisor to the negotiating team of the FMLN, which is currently trying to broker an end to their 11-year civil war with the ARENA-dominated Salvadoran govemment.

At press time, there are reports which indicate that the peace process is still very much alive and has produced a tentative agreement between the rebels and the govemment, with another meeting scheduled this month.

The following abridged interview was conducted by members from the Latin American Solidarity Committee.

LASC: What do you see as the role of the United States in the peace process (or lack thereof), and what does the FMLN hope for the future in terms of the U.S. role?

Sanabria: Well, first, I think it is important to review the legacy of the '80s in terms of U.S. policy. What Reagan left this new administration in Washington was an unconditional and deep military commitment to the Salvadoran army, something which is difficult to move away from. Washington has spent more that $4 billion in both economic and military aid, but has been looking for a military victory - a dream that has fallen apart. It's not possible, with the military stalemate we've had. Washington has not been looking for a negotiated settlement as an exit to this conflict, but has invested economic, political, and military resources for a military solution.

Now, January '89 in Washington brings a new administration - the Bush administration. From the beginning, at least in talk, that administration signalled that they were supportive of a peaceful settlement in El Salvador. But their actions are another story. Their actions have been supportive of the army. As long as you send signals to the army that you are supporting them, that you are not backing away from that support, the army will not understand political settlements and will continue looking for the military effort, and continue looking to prolong the war and the conflict.

So Washington needs to be consistent, words with actions, and not send mixed signals or establish political patterns of double standards. On one hand you demand from that army a good record on human rights, or a good record in the administration of justice, yet on the other hand you give that same army military support even if they don't play by the rules.

Certainly Washington plays the most significant role as an international player in this conflict. Washington, with its political, economic, and military commitment in El Salvador, can make a change. And in order for that to happen, we believe they must start with conditioning their aid, but not with terms imposed on the FMLN. We don't receive a single penny of that aid! Why then does Washington impose conditions on us?

The conditions must be imposed upon the recipient of that aid; they should be imposed on the Salvadoran army. If they don't behave well at the negotiation table and in human rights and the administration of justice and respect for civilians, then they should pay the price. And the price's name is conditioning, cutting-off, retention, and halting of military aid from the United States. And we propose to Washington that instead of continuing to channel aid to the military, the aid for the present fiscal year that ends in October should be chanelled for the reconstruction of the country.

Once peace comes to El Salvador, we are not expecting that millions and millions of dollars in economic aid are going to come from international financial institutions, private banks, or govemments as seen in the instances of Panama and Nicaragua. They will forget about us. We will be left only with our own resources, and we will have to deal with that reality.

So again, Washington plays an important role. So does the continuation of support that the American people have provided the Salvadoran people. We still need the solidarity work (both humanitarian and political) and accompaniment of the Salvadoran people in their struggle; the "watch" activity in terms of human rights, and hopefully, the continuation of commitments supporting altemative development in El Salvador. That will come not from government institutions, not from the most wealthy economic sectors of the country, but it will come from people's organizations - a new kind of altemative development model - from the base, from the grassroots, through cooperative property, through private initiative but to benefit the community - wealth coming from a free market economy, with different kinds of property, that will benefit social, economic, educational, health and all problems of the people.

What Salvadorans want is what Americans were expecting before the war broke out in the Middle East. Everybody was talking here and in Europe about a peace dividend. That's what we want. A peace dividend in El Salvador means getting rid of the defense budget. Why do you need that? There's no need for that money now that ideological and political borders are falling apart. There's no Cold War. There's no threat of communism. Why do you need this national security? There's no reason for that. We can organize our defense in case of danger, there are models of volunteer defense, in Sweden, in Switzerland. There are models of volunteer armies. You don't need to sustain salaries, weaponry and that kind of stuff. You can organize a volunteer army without spending huge amounts of your budget that should be dedicated to other kinds of spending. So that's more or less what we are proposing.

LASC : Could you say a little bit about the role of elections in El Salvador and what happened in the recent elections?

Sanabria: The conditions in which the March elections took place are no different from the conditions in which the last seven elections in the '80s took place in El Salvador. The Supreme Electoral Council is subject to fraud, because it is controlled by the ARENA party, the party in power. It is not an independent body; it's not an impartial body.

Second, the military exercised its impunity in actions, repression, and intimidation. For example, let's say I'm an opposition leader who has come here to this city to propose the formation of a branch of my party here in Detroit to you, and we're here having our dinner in a nice environment. I have convinced you already to go ahead and help me. You've pledged to go out and campaign for my party, but suddenly , seven members of the National Guard walk in, and without touching you, just ask you for your I.D. They take your I.D., take your name, your address, your phone number, and they say "goodbye." That is enough to change your mind immediately. That is called intimidation. That is called psychological repression.

And this is the way the army acts. In extreme cases they have killed people. They just killed two professionals of one party of the Left across the street from the American embassy, one of the most guarded places in the country. What kind of democracy is this? It's a mockery of democracy. It's not democracy.

LASC: In light of the f act that these elections weren't any different from the last seven elections, why didn't the FMLN boycott them?

Sanabria: Because in terms of the political environment of the country, conditions have changed. For the fïrst time in almost 20 years we had a spectrum of the Salvadoran electoral left participating with a good chance of winning seats in the assembly - not the majority - but winning significant places.

That's number one. Second, the peace process, as a result of the struggle, has gained international recognition, legitimacy, and support. The fact is that the United Nations is participating in mediating the talks for peace, so for the FMLN, it was important to show the international community our political will. It was important to show that we were serious about the peace process.