informeannual_17_1_jpgprintjpg
Advocacy, annual report, education, Environment, Food Security, News Highlights, Voices Developments, Womens issues, Youth Development

Celebrating 30 years of Solidarity with the People of El Salvador – 2016 Annual Report

2016 was a dynamic year for Voices. We said goodbye to old friends and opened the door to new ones. We began an extensive education revitalization project in Bajo Lempa, started supporting women’s empowerment in Morazán and even joined in on environmental justice protests in the capital San Salvador.

This year is even more special because we turn 30! Since our inception in the refugee camps until now, we have never deserted our communities and are committed to being a critical source of support for them now, and in the future.

informeannual_17_1_jpgprintjpg

Read our report to find out what our partners have been up to, the large scales issues they are facing and how Voices has been working hard in collaboration with leaders to find solutions to issues and pathways to accomplishing goals.

U.S. Relations

US Organizations Demand Justice for Central American Migrants in the United States

logos

(Text in Spanish Below)

We, the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), US-El Salvador Sister Cities, SHARE, Joining Hands Network (RUMHES), Voices on the Border, and the Center for Exchange and Solidarity (CIS), organizations in solidarity with El Salvador based in the United States, denounce the raids being carried by our government for the purpose of deporting Central American families seeking asylum in the United States.

The repressive and violent actions of US immigration authorities constitute serious human rights violations and generate anxiety and terror in the immigrant community. According to the United Nations, many of the Central American families who migrate to the United States in recent years fulfil the requirements to receive international protection as refugees due to the violent situations in their communities of origin. What’s more, migrant rights defenders have indicated grave failures to provide due process for this population, especially in regards to the right to legal advice. The United States has a moral responsibility and an obligation under international agreements to protect these families and to not return them to dangerous situations.

These mass detentions are part of an immigration system that considers immigration a border security issue rather than a human rights issue. This system focuses on militarizing not just the US border, but also borders in Mexico and Central America, family detention, and mass deportation. These immigration policies are inhumane, and they generate great profits for the defense industry and private prisons that operate immigrant detention facilities; they generate more violence and danger, and infringe on the rights of migrants and refugees.

We affirm that, in addition to the economic inequality and social violence in Central America that generates migration and forced displacement, these phenomena are in large part the result of US intervention in the region. The imposition of neoliberal economic policies like free trade agreements and privatization has created conditions of economic and labor instability and precariousness, and military and security interventions both during the civil war and afterwards through the War On Drugs and the Regional Security Initiative for Central America (CARSI) have aggravated the situation of violence and weakened access to justice throughout the region. Today, under the pretext of putting a stop to Central American migration, the United States is driving the militarization of regional borders through initiatives like the Southern Border Plan with the Mexican government, and now as conditions on funds allocated to support the Alliance for Prosperity Plan for the Northern Triangle of Central America.

Instead of pursuing repressive policies against migrants, the United States government should stop enacting policies that aggravate the economic and social crises in the countries of origin. As organizations based in the United States, we demand the following:

  • An immediate stop to the round ups,
  • That Central American families receive humanitarian aid,
  • That the rights of migrants and refugees be respected,
  • And that the United States government and its ambassador in El Salvador stop imposing interventionist neoliberal and militaristic policies that contribute to the forced displacement and mass migration.

San Salvador, El Salvador

January 19, 2015

Organizaciones Estadounidenses Exigen Justicia Para los Migrantes Centroamericanos en los EEUU

Nosotros, el Comité en Solidaridad con el Pueblo de El Salvador (CISPES), Ciudades Hermanas, La Fundación Share, Red Uniendo Manos contra el Hambre El Salvador (RUMHES), Voces en la Frontera, y el Centro de Intercambio y Solidaridad (CIS), organizaciones de solidaridad con El Salvador con base en los Estados Unidos, denunciamos las redadas realizadas por nuestro gobierno con el fin de deportar familias centroamericanas que buscan asilo en los Estados Unidos.

Las acciones represivas y violentas de las autoridades de migración estadounidenses constituyen una violación grave de derechos humanos además de generar zozobra y terror en la comunidad migrante. Según la Organización de las Naciones Unidas, muchas de las familias centroamericanas que han migrado a los EEUU en los últimos años cumplen los requisitos para recibir protecciones internacionales como refugiados por las situaciones de violencia en sus comunidades de origen. Además, defensores de los derechos de migrantes han señalado graves fallos en la aplicación del debido proceso para esta población, especialmente el derecho a la asesoría jurídica. Los EEUU tienen una responsabilidad moral y de una obligación bajo convenios internacionales de proteger a estas familias y no regresarlas a situaciones de peligro.

Estas detenciones masivas forman parte de un sistema migratorio que concibe de la migración como un problema de seguridad de fronteras, y no como un tema de derechos humanos. Este sistema se enfoca en impulsar la militarización de las fronteras, tanto estadounidenses como mexicanas y centroamericanas, la detención de familias migrantes, y la deportación masiva. Estas políticas migratorias son inhumanas, y enriquecen a la industria militarista y las empresas carcelarias que operan los centros de detención de migrantes; generan más violencia y peligro, y vulneran los derechos de migrantes y refugiados.

Afirmamos, además, que la desigualdad económica y violencia social en Centroamérica que genera la migración y el desplazamiento forzado son resultados en gran parte de las intervenciones estadounidenses en la región. La imposición de políticas económicas neoliberales como los tratados de libre comercio y la privatización ha creado condiciones de inestabilidad y precariedad económica y laboral, y las intervenciones militares y de seguridad tanto en los tiempos del conflicto armado como a través de la Guerra Contra Las Drogas y la Iniciativa Regional de Seguridad para América Central (CARSI) han agravado la situación de violencia y debilitado el acceso a la justicia al nivel regional. Hoy, con el pretexto de querer detener la migración centroamericana, los Estados Unidos está impulsando la militarización de las fronteras regionales a través de iniciativas como Plan Frontera Sur con el gobierno de México y ahora como condición para los fondos destinados a apoyar el Plan de la Alianza para la Prosperidad del Triangulo Norte de Centroamérica.

En vez de proseguir políticas represivas contra los inmigrantes, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos debe dejar de avanzar políticas que agravan las crisis económicas y sociales en sus países de origen. Como organizaciones con base en los Estados Unidos, exigimos lo siguiente de nuestro gobierno:

  • Un alto inmediato a las redadas,
  • Que las familias centroamericanas reciban protección humanitaria,
  • Que se respeten los derechos de los migrantes y refugiados,
  • Y que el gobierno de los Estados Unidos y su embajada en El Salvador dejen de impulsar políticas intervencionistas neoliberales y militaristas que contribuyen al desplazamiento forzado y la migración masiva.

San Salvador, El Salvador

19 de enero de 2015

education

Learn More about the Bajo Lempa Education Project

DSC_0444

On the 1st, we launched a Global Giving fundraising campaign for an intensive educational project in the Bajo Lempa. To date, we’ve recieved numerous generous donations and have less than a week to reach our goal. Today Global Giving will be matching donations at 20%.

Have you been wondering what our Bajo Lempa education project is all about?             Click on the PDF below to get a better understanding of the nuts and bolts and, as always, feel free to share.

LEER, Lograr en Educación Rural / Success in Rural Education

agriculture, Economy, International Relations, U.S. Relations

The Cost of Free Trade: 5 Years into DR-CAFTA

The Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (or DR-CAFTA) went into effect March 1, 2006. After 5 years, it is time to evaluate what kind of results this agreement has produced. Like any other free trade agreement, the logic behind CAFTA was that liberalized trade leads to a net welfare gain for both countries. Furthermore, because the seven countries involved in the agreement (US, Dominican Republic, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Nicaragua) have different resources, technologies, and preferences, there are gains to be made from trade. By pursuing each other’s comparative advantage, as David Ricardo first argued, each country may specialize in that which it is relatively better at producing. This is a powerful theory, but as economics often shows, theory cannot always be reconciled with reality; many of these models make specific assumptions that do not always match the real world. Specifically in the case of CAFTA, it appears as though the Central American countries have suffered several negative consequences of this free trade agreement. The results of the agreement that weren’t clearly negative are ambiguous at best.

 

The removal of tariffs lowers the costs of trade between these countries and their main trading partner–the US. That being said, because tariffs have been removed, the governments of the Central American countries have less government revenue flowing in. While the US hardly had any tariffs on imported goods from Central American countries, the Central American nations had high tariffs on US goods in order to raise revenue for their governments. Before DR-CAFTA came into effect, about 80% of all US goods were not duty free, and the removal of the tariffs caused the governments to lose a substantial amount of revenue.

 

Additionally, because the US subsidizes its agricultural products, it has hurt the average farmers in these Central American countries. Since most Central American farmers cannot compete with the massive, more efficient farms in the US that are subsidized by the government, many of these Central American farmers find themselves out of business.  This forces them to instead try to find work in the multi-national corporations’ factories. More individuals in the cities seeking jobs in the so-called “maquilas” means that the supply of labor rises while the number of maquilas stays the same. This leads to an excess supply of Salvadorans seeking jobs in these factories. Thus, factory owners may lower their salaries because there is so much competition for work.

 

Many theorists would assert that one of the largest benefits of trade is that after lifting barriers to trade, the countries involved in the agreement will be able to consume more, leaving them all better off. In reality however, the results are neither negative nor positive, but rather unclear. Data shows that over the course of the last five years and until 2010, exports and imports in El Salvador have steadily increased. One, however, cannot say for certain that this is a direct result of DR-CAFTA. More than that, while Salvadoran exports and imports may have increased, it does not necessarily mean that El Salvador is physically producing and exporting more goods. Export and import data are calculated by value, and therefore one must factor prices into the equation. It is possible that El Salvador produced just as much last year as it did five years ago. However, because prices have risen, the value of its exports has also risen even though El Salvador is not better off in real terms. There is some evidence that suggests that increases in price levels over time account for some of the rise in exports. According to the data, El Salvador has experienced inflation since 2005. Because of the difficulty of directly attributing rises in exports and imports to DR-CAFTA the actual effect of the agreement on trade is ambiguous.

 

The effects of DR-CAFTA remain unclear when analyzing Chapter 10 of the agreement, which eliminates barriers to investment. According to the chapter, investments are very strongly protected.  This protection is provided by the most-favored nation provision (in which the countries agree to accord one another with the same favorable terms that would be offered in treaties with any other nation) the “fair and equitable treatment” clause (which refers to a country agreeing to treat foreign investors the same as domestic ones), and the “full protection and security” clause (which refers to a country’s agreement to protect one other’s investors by providing them with security).  Because of these provisions, multi-national corporations can securely conduct their business in signatory nations and employ their citizens.  Although this is positive for El Salvador and the rest of Central America, the nature of the jobs these corporations often provide is unsanitary, unsafe, and low-paying. Thus, the citizens of Central America are not necessarily better off, especially since the multi-national corporations often do not reinvest their profits within the region but instead send it back to their home country. Due to the lack of economic development from the international investors, workers do not necessarily stand to gain.

 

For all of these reasons, DR-CAFTA has no clear and significant benefits to El Salvador and the other Central American members of the agreement. Salvadorans and other Central Americans need development, and because DR-CAFTA seems to facilitate it through spurring investment, but impede it through working conditions, among other things, this trade agreement is neither a sufficient nor an ideal solution to development.  DR-CAFTA, along with its effects like poor working conditions, low salaries, US subsidized exports, etc, will continue to remain an issue of concern until further investigation and/or reforms can be completed.

Economy, El Salvador Government, International Relations, Mauricio Funes, News Highlights, U.S. Relations, violence

Obama to Travel to El Salvador

President Obama recently finalized the dates for his trip to Central and South America.  Pending U.S. government budget resolutions, he will tour the region March 19 to 23, visiting Brasilia and Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, Santiago, Chile, and San Salvador, El Salvador.  If the budget resolutions are not passed in time, however, his trip will almost definitely be cancelled or postponed.

While many are confounded by the President’s choice to visit El Salvador, there are several hot-button issues on the table. Salvadorans compose the 6th largest immigrant population in the U.S., numbering approximately between 1 and 1.5 million people. Most of them live and work in the U.S. under a Temporary Protected Status (TPS), begun in 1991 and extended in 18-month increments since then (the current TPS is set to expire March 2012). Given the continued violent and unstable political climate in El Salvador, Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes hopes to work with President Obama to establish permanent residence for those currently living under TPS.

In addition to immigration, a discussion about drug trafficking is likely to be a priority. Organized crime syndicates trading in drugs or weapons are a major cause of violence throughout Central America, though this remains largely unrecognized and untreated.  Where Mexico, the focus of the U.S.’s war on drugs, has 15 murders per 100,000 people yearly, El Salvador has 73, the highest rate in the region.

Funes recognizes that, in both of these cases, it’s important to unearth the root causes of the problem. In the same way that immigration issues can be addressed by reducing the flow of emigrants from El Salvador, so can narco-trafficking concerns be relieved by reducing North American drug consumption. Besides these international objectives, Funes hopes to impress upon Obama the dire need to reduce poverty in El Salvador. Some measures have already been proposed for the resolution of this problem; first, the BRIDGE initiative, which proposes formalizing and securitizing a system for workers to remit money from the U.S. to El Salvador, thus hypothetically increasing the long-term benefit of these remittances for the country as a whole. Second, Funes intends to open negotiation of a renewal of El Salvador’s 5-year compact with the Millennium Challenge Corporation (currently in its 3rd year), with grant money financing improvements in education, public services, agricultural production, rural business development, and transportation infrastructure.

Overall, President Obama’s visit to El Salvador seems to mark real intent to ally the two countries, and we at Voices are hopeful that these upcoming talks will result in a mutually beneficial relationship.