Download PDF of this full issue: v11n2.pdf (3.9 MB)

El Salvador: On The Wrong Side Again

By VVAW

One has to question just how "free" and "objective" the press really is here in the good old USA. A few short months ago, there was constant news and question about the U.S. involvement in El Salvador. But, as if by magic, Reagan and his boys uttered a few words about "Too much attention on El Salvador and its importance" and poof! it's gone from the news.

In please of El Salvador stories are instead stories about the Soviet Union and its aggression ( some of it very real, to be sure), including the imminent invasion of Poland, The Soviets denied it, the Polish government and workers denied it and most of Western Europe discounted it. But "I'm-in-charge" Haig bellowed about invasion either by direct use of Soviet troops or through some kind of osmosis. When the invasion didn't take place—a great victory and it proves that the Soviet Union is scared silly of Reagan.

But with all this sleigh-of-hand, the U.S. cannot completely hide its presence and involvement in El Salvador. Nor can the government hide the very real similarities between the situation in El Salvador and the way the U.S. got involved in Vietnam.

To begin with, the government of El Salvador is run by the military for the benefit of the extremely rich, a small group of 14 families which quite literally own the nation. The nominal President is a civilian but he holds office by grace of the Vice-President, the former military commander of the coup that "turned over power" to a "civilian government." The government exists at the discretion of the military, many of whose officers attended West Point and other U.S. military schools. There's a land reform program, made much of by the government, but patterned on and run by the same people who brought us "pacification" and "land-to-the tiller" in South Vietnam; the program gives the rocks and the mountains to the poor and saves the best land for the 14 families and their henchmen.

According to the Reagan United Nation's Ambassador, the El Salvador government is only "moderately repressive," and is thus worth American lives and money. According to the Catholic Church (hardly a Commie front group), 9,000 of the 10,000 war deaths in El Salvador last year were the direct responsibility of the government, not the guerilla forces.

The guerilla forces range in political philosophy from strict Catholic to orthodox Marxists. The bulk of the ant-government forces are peasants who are tired of hunger, repression and persecution; the Catholic Church, and trade unions. Much noise has been made about where these "guerilla forces' get their weapons, but tales of Soviet and Cuban involvement cannot hide the fact that most weapons are American made. They're the same weapons the U.S. supplied gladly to the El Salvadorian military for years and which were bought back from government troops on the Black Market for a fast buck (which may sound familiar to Vietnam Vets); many came from revolts within the military: during the last guerilla offensive, a whole battalion guarding one town changed sides with its weapons and equipment.

The El Salvador government is in trouble. It doesn't have the support of the population and needs the U.S. to prop it up So the U.S. government sends in advisors and equipment money. But as has happened so many times in the past, the U.S. is backing the wrong side. The Reagan administration cannot or will not see the utter corruption of a regime that Reagan is so willing to sacrifice young American ( not including ballerina Ron Jr, no doubt) for. Hung up on the old "Red-under-every-bed" theory of foreign policy, the Reagan-Haig view of the world sees the Soviet Union behind each end every legitimate desire of a people to throw off a repressive government.

The bankruptcy of their position is evident in a number of revolutions which have taken place in the last year—and which have not produced pro-Soviet governments. Zimbabwe provides one example. Only a few months ago the talk was about the Soviet-armed and trained Black guerillas seizing what was then Rhodesia—but it didn't happen. Reagan and friends lay all unrest in the world to a Soviet plot; every revolution or rebellion against a U.S. backed regime is Soviet inspired and directed, sot he U.S. ends up supporting every two-bit Mussolini around the world. By this "logic" Zimbabwe must be a Soviet puppet—at least so the right-wing proclaimed. But during independence ceremonies in Zimbabwe, Eastern-block countries were excluded and the Soviet Union was not even allowed to open an Embassy until recently. The country of Zimbabwe has steered a course independent of either the U.S. or the USSR.

There's a reason to think a similar course would not be taken by El Salvador. It's hard to blame the guerillas for accepting aid from wherever they can get it when facing the local murderers and torturers brought and paid for by the U.S. government. In fact U.S. policies drive insurgent movements into the arms of Cuba and the USSR in response to U.S. money and advisors.

Why is the U.S. involved in El Salvador—as in Vietnam—in fighting against the people? The simple fact is that Reagan is looking after American interests such as American Fruit and the Bank of America, just like presidents before him looked after Michelin and Texaco in Vietnam. The question remaining is whether the American people believe it's worth their tax dollars to support dictatorships—which will lose, sooner or later—and whether it's worth sacrificing their children once again for multi-national corporate interests.