Bullet The Disappeared: U2’s El Salvador

Bullet The Disappeared: U2’s El Salvador


2017 marks 25 years since the end of El Salvador’s civil war. It also marks the 30th anniversary of U2’s groundbreaking album, “The Joshua Tree” (which included hits such as “Where the Streets Have No Name” and “With or Without You“).

U2 and El Salvador? What’s the connection?

People of my generation (“millennials”) will likely know U2 as the “washed up rockers” who have desperately tried to stay relevant in pop culture—it’s hard to forget how the band forced their 2011 album, “Songs of Innocence,” onto everyone’s iPhone (it didn’t go so well).

But for others, U2 was a dominant, innovative rock n’ roll force of the 80s, one soaked in creative guitar-playing and politically charged lyrics. Some of these lyrics were on 1987’s “The Joshua Tree” and were ones which dealt with El Salvador’s civil war.

Civil War

I’ve touched on El Salvador’s civil war in previous blog posts, but for those who are new to this blog or to the subject, the following can offer some context.

2017 marks the 30th anniversary of U2’s “The Joshua Tree.”

Like other Latin American countries, El Salvador was caught up in a conflict between leftist rebels and the oligarchical (military junta) state. It was a conflict which was a microcosm of a larger proxy war between Cold War combatants. Tensions were high, not just in Latin American, but across the Western World—with the fear that the country could become “another Cuba,” El Salvador’s geopolitical significance was hard to ignore. As a result, the US helped fund and train El Salvador’s army to fight against the guerilla front (the FMLN).

The civil war lasted 12 years, ending in 1992 with a peace treaty between the FMLN and the state. Along the way, horrendous acts were committed by both sides.

Using this as a backdrop, U2 recorded two songs for The Joshua Tree. It was recently announced that the band would be re-touring the album this year to mark its anniversary. U2’s guitarist told Rolling Stone that their decision to revisit the album has much to do with the times we live in today: the Trump election, Brexit…”it feels like we’re right back [in the turbulence of the 1980s] in a way.” If the tour isn’t profitable (which it probably will be), it will be at least poetic.

U2’s El Salvador

The connection between The Joshua Tree and El Salvador’s civil war is inconspicuous at first—what does a band from Ireland have to do with Central American politics? For U2, it was a matter of timing.

The Joshua Tree conceived two songs which were inspired by Bono’s visits to Central American countries, which included El Salvador: “Bullet the Blue Sky,” and “Mothers of the disappeared.”  Both deal with wartime atrocities.

Bullet,” one of U2’s heavier tracks, is based on Bono’s experience as he witnessed the fire-bombing of a nearby village (you can listen to his whole story here). Its lyrics are politically-charged—at one point, Bono becomes critical of US intervention and Ronald Reagan, describing him as a rich, “red-faced” man:

Lyrics from “Bullet the Blue Sky”

This guy comes up to me
His face red like a rose on a thorn bush
Like all the colors of a royal flush
And he’s peeling off those dollar bills
Slapping them down
One hundred, two hundred
And I can see those fighter planes
And I can see those fighter planes
Across the mud huts where the children sleep
Through the alleys of a quiet city street
You take the staircase to the first floor
Turn the key and slowly unlock the door
As a man breathes into a saxophone
And through the walls you hear the city groan
Outside is America
Outside is America

Indeed, with the growing fear of state-sanctioned death squads and disappearances, the overarching mood of Bullet was that US intervention was detrimental to Salvadorans.

On the subject of “disappearances,” U2 wrote Mothers of the Disappeared. Less politically-charged than Bullet, Mothers deals with a common, unfortunate occurrence of the civil war: the disappearance or murder of those perceived as rebel sympathizers. These included human-rights defenders, journalists, and students (Wolfe, 2017, p. 33).

The song was written after Bono and his wife met with members of CoMadres, an organization founded by women who had had lost family members during the civil war (Jobling, 2014, p. 159):

Midnight, our sons and daughters
Cut down, taken from us
Hear their heartbeat
We hear their heartbeat

In the wind we hear their laughter
In the rain we see their tears
Hear their heartbeat
We hear their heartbeat

US support for the Salvadoran government only ceased in 1989 after six Jesuit priests and two employees from the Central American University were murdered by the Salvadoran army. The widespread condemnation forced the US to cut military aid (Wolfe, 2017, p. 31).

25 years later, many question if the war accomplished any of the goals the sought out by the FMLN. The economic divide persists. There’s little access to well-paying jobs. Perhaps worst of all, citizens are held hostage by relentless gang activity. Some Salvadorans I’ve spoken with have commented that in spite of the social inequalities pre and post-civil war, they felt the country was in better shape before the war than after it—the logic, they’ve told me, is that despite the shortcomings of the pre-civil war oligarchy, Salvadorans were at least able to roam the streets without worrying about being shaken down by gangs.

I recently picked up Mano Dura: The Politics of Gang Control in El Salvador by Sonja Wolfe, a research fellow at the Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economicas in

Fearing the threat of communism, Ronald Reagan’s administration provided support to El Salvador’s army throughout the civil war.

Aguascalientes, Mexico. I’ve only scratched its surface (36 out of 237 pages), but in it, she outlines how the failure of current anti-gang policies stem from the flawed creation of the country’s national civil police force. She argues that the same government officials who were heads during the civil war—and who were responsible for atrocities during the war—were the same ones in charge of creating the police force once the country demilitarized. Plus ça change, plus c’est la meme chose.

Does that mean the sky falling? In this whole U2-El Salvador connection, good news exists: after meeting with a delegation comprised of activists and scholars, El Salvador President Sanchez Ceren announced on January 27 that his government would create a National Commission into the disappearance of persons during the civil war. However, given the flip-floppiness of previous administrations, Ceren’s administration should be observed stringently to ensure that it sticks to its word and conducts a thorough investigation.

Coming Full Circle

An interesting (and brief) thought to end.

There’s a theory by some music historians that the popularity of certain music genre fluctuates depending on who’s in the white house. Prominent Canadian music historian and radio personality Alan Cross has made the argument that rockier, edgier, punk-infused music grows in popularity whenever Republicans take Capitol Hill. Conversely, pop music (Britney Spears, The Backstreet Boys) reigns when the Democrats are in.

Subscribing to this theory would add yet another similarity between 1987 and 2017.

1987: Violence plagues El Salvador. Republicans are in the White House. Latin American migration is a contentious US-policy issue. U2 tours the Joshua Tree while criticizing the Reagan administration.

2017: Violence plagues El Salvador. Republicans are in the White House. Latin American migration is a contentious US-policy issue. U2 tours the Joshua Tree while criticizing the Trump administration.

An anniversary, indeed. One could hope that the next El Salvador-themed song U2 writes has less to do with violence and more with harmony.


A Big “Thank You!”/What I’m Watching in 2017

central america

Happy 2017! Apologies for the tardiness. It’s taken a while to get my feet of the ground this year.

First off, a personal note: I’d like to say “thank you” for checking out this blog.

WordPress users are able to see how many hits their pages receive. I’m happy to say that over the course of one year, the number of visitors who frequent notesbyhenry has steadily increased. I sincerely hope you walk away from this blog learning something new, or at the very least, walk away with something to think about. We live in a time of news-bombardment; highlighting some of the stories and issues in Latin America has been my objective since Day 1.

A lot happened in 2016. A lot of it has carried over to 2017. Here’s some of the stuff I’ll be watching this year:

Cuba: A lot has happened in US/Cuban relations in recent months, particularly Fidel Castro’s death and President Obama’s announcement that America’s “wet foot, dry foot” policy—which granted Cubans entry into the US—would end. On top of that, as of Jan. 20, Donald Trump is the new US President. How does Cuba move forward? Will Trump affect the relationship between the US and Cuba?

Venezuela: Recent months haven’t been good for Venezuela’s struggling economy. In December, it was reported that new, higher-value banknotes would be circulated by the government to help with food shortages and daily living, but they were never issued.  The minimum wage was also increased by 50 percent according to the Associated Press (to 104,358 bolivars, or about $30 a day), but that offered little relief in a country troubled by food scarcity. Looting and protests have become commonplace.

Colombia: After two attempts, the Colombian government and FARC agreed to a peace treaty last year. Politics may have triumphed, but how will everyday Colombians react to former FARC rebels re-integrating into Colombia?

El Salvador: Violent gangs continue to run El Salvador’s streets. How will the country address this issue? There have been reports that one of the country’s predominant gangs, MS-13, has asked to speak with the government with the goal of dissolving the gang completely, but this puts the government in an awkward position—there’s a lot of public anger projected toward gangs in El Salvador. The NY Times also reported that El Salvador went one complete day without a homicide, but its important to note that this only includes homicides that have been reported (not to be pessimistic).

Immigration: Illegal US border crossings were at an all-high time high in 2016. Some speculate that it was because Latinos wanted to get into the US before Donald Trump’s presidency. Others attribute it to the ever-present danger of gangs and socio-economic instability in Latin America. Whatever the reason, 2017 will be interesting to watch in terms of border security.

There’s also much more going on in the region—increased Mexican migration to Canada, corruption charges in Argentina and Nicaragua, the ongoing war on drugs. It doesn’t take too much effort to dig up a story.

What story will you be watching?

The Trail Left by Fidel


The revolutionary is dead. The news drew mixed reactions around the world.

Fidel led a life drawing the ire of the West while maintaining the hopes of social justice and equality from his supporters. With his brother Raul now in power, what happens in Cuba’s following years will help solidify Fidel’s legacy—was he the revolutionary his supporters claim, or was he the oppressive dictator hated by the West? You may already have made up your mind.

Putting aside the Cold War, the Cuban missile crisis, the failed invasion of the Bay of Pigs, and all the general animosity which has existed in the 20th century between Cuba and the West (who can forget the US embargo?), examining Castro’s accomplishments and shortcomings can help us appreciate the lasting effect he has had on 20th century politics.

My personal view is that it’s easy to support the idea of “taking down the imperialist ruler to let the people rule for themselves”—if that’s how the argument is framed, then the line between “the good guys” and the “bad guys” favours Castro: Fidel is a hero. He fought in the name of justice, giving land to peasants, bringing black Cubans from the countrysides to white-populated cities like Havana (NY Times, “Global Brinksmanship”).

But I don’t believe it’s that simple. For Cuba’s political environment to have functioned in the Fidel era, Cubans have had to make sacrifices; ones which consisted of rights they fought for in their revolution, and ones which if we were to put in standards of developed countries—“democratic” or “communist”—would be unacceptable.

Successes: School and Health

For the purpose of this post, I want to hash out two  successes in areas often touted by the supporters of Castro’s policies: Education and Health Care. These successes are noteworthy; while Fidel has many critics, it would be impossible for them to ignore the positive effect he has had on two of man/woman’s most fundamental human rights.

If one follows international standards, Castro delivered on his promise for access to education. Cuba is the second-highest ranking Latin American country in the world on the UN Education Index, placing 44th in a list of 187 countries. That’s only three behind of Chile, which placed 41st. Adding to that, UNESCO figures show that the country boasts a 99% literacy rate. Castro has undeniably been successful in promoting education in Cuba.

This is not surprising. After overthrowing Batista in 1959, Castro envisioned an education system unobstructed by social barriers. One academic reported early on that the illiteracy rate dropped from 25% to 2-3% in the first ten years after his revolution (Allan, G., 1974). Similar policies were pushed and evolved in the following years, to the point where Cuba now has a fully state-funded tertiary education system. Thus, even in the new millennium, when compared to their regional counterparts, Cubans were likely to access education under Fidel:

Level of Schooling 1991, End of USSR 1999, Turn of Century 2006, Castro final years
Primary 92 97 99
Secondary 65 72 94
Tertiary 25 20 88

Figure 1: Percentage of students of enrolment age enrolled in primary, secondary, or tertiary education (%). Source: World Bank 

Successes in healthcare are equally as noteworthy. Cuba’s publicly run system is considered among the best in the Latin American world, even drawing praise by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2000.

In 2014, Cuba devoted 11.1% of its GDP toward healthcare (about US $8.8 billion), a figure larger than what most Latin American countries had spent on their own systems. It’s also been on record that other Latin American heads of state, such as Salvadoran President Sanchez Ceren and former Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, have made trips to Cuba to receive medical attention rather than relying on the health care systems of their own countries. While it doesn’t boast the same technological health care advancements as more developed countries, by Latin American standards, Cuba is a leader.

So, in terms of spreading knowledge and health care—two rights highlighted in the UN Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 25 and 26)—Fidel did well in Cuba, and these successes have helped legitimize the communist revolution for other left-leaning Latin American leaders and groups: Salvador Allende in Chile, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the FMLN in El Salvador, and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua are just a few.

But of course, Fidel has as many critics as he has supporters.

More work to be done

Criticism of Castro’s rule quickly gravitates towards Cuba’s human rights record, which is mired with accusations of imprisoning political activists and journalists. According to Human Rights Watch, as of 2016,

the Cuban government continues to repress dissent and discourage public criticism. It now relies less on long-term prison sentences to punish its critics, but short-term arbitrary arrests of human rights defenders, independent journalists, and others have increased dramatically in recent years. Other repressive tactics employed by the government include beatings, public acts of shaming, and the termination of employment.

These sentiments were echoed by Amnesty International, which reported that “the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation (CCDHRN) documented more than 8,600 politically motivated detentions of government opponents and activists during [2015/2016]” (italics mine). Commentators have lent their support to this claim, in addition to claims that Castro sanctioned extra-judicial killings.

Fidel Castro and Che Guevara are regarded as two of Latin America’s champions of freedom

Additionally, Cuba has also been criticized for the state of its promotion of press freedom: Freedom House gave Cuba a score of 91/100 (where the closer the score is to 100, the more infringed the press is) and labelled the country’s “Press Freedom” status as “not free”. As my fellow communication and journalism colleagues will know, journalism’s fourth-estate role is crucial for keeping tabs on heads of state and individual human rights. Very few newspapers outside state-sanctioned ones exist in the country, which creates an obvious (and quite problematic) conflict of interest (Miami Herald, “A Major Advantage”).

The issues of access to free speech and the freedom to share information are troublesome regardless of where one lies on the political spectrum.

It’s been contested even in the context of the West: Canadians expressed outrage when C-30 (The “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act”) was proposed in 2012. Critics argued that such a bill would have facilitated mass surveillance of online activity. In the US and around the world, SOPA and PIPA caused a stir, as did Edward Snowden’s revelation of the CIA’s PRISM program. Even Turkish President Recep Erdogan caused a stir after trying ban Twitter in his country after some unflattering news was leaked on the platform.

In the case of Castro, these problems are at times seen as necessary consequences in the fight for socialism and against Western Imperialism. This doesn’t mean that Canadian, U.S., or European attempts at presenting these laws were any better, but it also shouldn’t legitimize Castro’s approach to implementing them.

Furthermore, much can be said about the socio-economic state of many Cubans. it would also seem that Castro’s economic policies—ones which may have seen success 50 years ago—haven’t adapted for the 21st century. Low wages continue to plague the country’s population—shortly after Castro’s death, many reports surfaced of younger generations of Cubans who were concerned that the old “Castro economic system,” which relied on USSR subsidies and state-run industries, was failing them. For instance, one CBC article noted that some Cubans turn to black market jobs, such as prostitution, to make ends meet. Similarly to other Latin American countries, many rely on remittances to tie loose ends.

Such policies may have fostered nationalism, but it also hurt Cuba’s ability to keep up with new communication technologies: Cuba has only recently opened its communication infrastructure to allow for cellphones and for internet wifi-zones around the country, communication technologies which are vital for 21st century commerce, political engagement, and day-to-day living. Access is limited and often times expensive.

Rest in Peace, Comrade

One thing the pro-Castro and anti-Castro camps can agree on is the lasting impact Fidel had on Cubans. Thousands lined the street to catch a glimpse of his ashes as they made their way across 800km (500 miles) of Cuban terrain. Over the weekend, I saw a speech delivered by his brother Raul in front of thousands of Cubans in which he was emphatic that Cuba’s socialist dream was within reach.

A carriage containing Fidel Castro's ashes drives down the street at Parque Cespedes in Santiago de Cuba, Cuba, Dec. 3, 2016. Bringing to an end nine days of national mourning, the ashes of Fidel Castro were buried on Sunday morning in a cemetery in this coastal city where, 63 years ago, he began his socialist revolution. (Tomas Munita/The New York Times/Redux)
Thousands lined the streets to catch a glimpse of Castro’s ashes

Whether positioned on the left or the right, it’s important to examine Castro’s legacy from the height of a U-2 spy-plane (*pun*). I’ve examined some arguments made by both sides. It’s important not to frame the debate in terms of “The West vs. Cuba,” because there will never be a “perfect” leader—if framed this way, the debate is set up in such a way that paints a “good guy” and a “bad guy,” which trivializes it. Rather, we should look at what the leaders—Castro, Kennedy, Nixon, Trudeau, etc.—have done for their countries.

The truth is that Castro succeeded in areas other Latin American countries failed, particularly in access to education and access to health care. By those measures, his “dreaded” communist policies were actually efficient.

However, access to education and access to healthcare are only two social aspects that Castro wanted to tackle in his fight for social equality for all. Fidel may have been a champion for Latin America in these areas, but as of now, if viewed from a broader, international level, his 50 years of ruling leaves much to be desired.

Hillary under the Latino Microscope

US politics got you bored yet? Hear me out for a sec.

We’re all tired of US election talk. Trump won. It’s over.

Questions are circulating in the US, one of which is what will happen with the 7 million illegal immigrants living in the country. It’s estimated that half are Latino.

We’re familiar with Trump’s on-the-record claims regarding Mexicans: the US has become Mexico’s dumping ground for drugs, crime, and rapists (don’t forget, “some good people” too). It was reported yesterday that he would “immediately” kick 2-3 million illegal immigrants out of the US; kick them out and keep them out with a wall.

If you’re Latino, Trump sucks. Clearly, Clinton has your best interest.

Perhaps it was Trump’s outlandish rhetoric toward, well, everyone, or perhaps it was his lack of policy direction, but for whatever reason, Hillary Clinton seemed to be the Latino champion. Indeed,  between the two candidates, I would have stood behind Clinton.

But for a population that was so front and centre at the beginning of Clinton vs. Trump, it struck me as bizarre that toward the final months of the campaign, Clinton’s relationship with Latin America was subject to such little scrutiny.

Latin America has an interesting love-hate relationship with the US. While Latinos look to the US for “freedom”, “safety” and “prosperity”, it’s hard to forget the effect of US involvement in the region throughout the Cold War. Judging by the number of Latinos currently in the US, it would seem as though Latinos might be able to forgive the 1980s for years of hardship, so long as those years are not forgotten. The last thing Central/Latin America needs is more negative US-involvement in the region.

Yet, here we are with Hillary Clinton.

In short, it was reported that in 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported the June 2009 coup of Honduras’ democratically elected government. At the time of the coup, President Manuel Zelaya was in the process of conducting a referendum with the goal of amending the constitution to allow for an additional presidential term.

Manuel Zelaya detail, ABR August 07, 2007.jpg
Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was overthrown in a 2009 coup

Rather than following President Obama’s lead in condemning the coup (one which he referred to as “illegal”), and in spite of cries from the UN and OAS, Clinton refused to acknowledge that a coup had taken place. Furthermore, in spite of a diplomatic cable which stated that the “forced removal by military was clearly illegal”, Clinton threw her support behind a federal election for a new president. Put anyone in power, just not Zelaya.

Clinton justified her decision by saying that she was attempting to“broker a solution without bloodshed,” and without the sanctions a “coup” inherits. However, critics pointed out that shortly after the overthrow, Honduras was hit by waves of violence traced back to the coup: the re-emergence of death squads, the tightening grasp of gang activity, and the murder of social activists (although, I would argue that gang activity had proliferated long before the coup had taken place), and that sanctions in other coups (such as Egypt in 2013) weren’t lifted at all.

I’d like to point out that Zelaya was far from perfect—he was a polarizing figure in Honduras who lacked unanimous support regarding his direction in policy development and his handling of social issues. He was also linked to corruption charges and shady business deals, such as his involvement with Hondutel, the country’s telecom provider.

However, a US Presidential candidate meddling with the democratic process of a foreign country is quite concerning. As a country which prides itself in democratic ideals and supporting democratically-elected leaders, it’s worrisome that a presidential candidate and former Secretary of State would stand idle and not only refuse to denounce the coup as a “coup”, but also attempt to justify it.

Maybe Hillary acted the way she did because she understood the Hondurans struggles. Maybe she was acting as a motherly/grandmotherly figure to give Hondurans not what they wanted, but what they needed. Maybe?

Latinos might remember Hillary likening herself to their “abuela”(Spanish for “grandmother”). Earlier this year, the Clinton campaign posted a list of “7 things Hillary Clinton has in common with your abuela”. The strategy didn’t sit well with critics, many of whom were Latinos who went online with #NotMyAbuela to voice their disapproval of what they called “Hispandering”. Indeed, as the New York Times reported, critics pointed out that unlike many Latina grandmothers, “Mrs. Clinton did not grow up poor like their relatives, and was not separated from loved ones by country borders.”

(Editorial note: as a Latino, I viewed Clinton’s “abuela” strategy as pandering).

But certain tactics such as pandering should be expected in elections. As my fresh-out-law-school friend commented, “it’s better she pander to the Latino vote than to demonize them”. That’s probably true—if I was given the option between the candidate who outwardly insulted Latinos and the candidate who might look like s/he cares for them, I would go with the latter.

However, there’s a sense of “authenticity” which pandering leaves to be desired. Are one’s intentions real? Thus, the question that follows is: were Latinos’ interests ever legitimately addressed in the 2016 election? After Trump referred to Mexicans as criminals and rapists, the Latino vote was left dangling like an apple for the taking. Slam dunk for Clinton.

But what if Trump hadn’t so outwardly demonized them? Would we still be so shocked with his deportation plan? It’s worthy to note that by 2015, the Obama administration was on track to deport more illegal immigrants than any other administration in US history. By 2016, it had deported close to 2.5 million, but this fact was seldom mentioned throughout the presidential race.

In the end, democracy played out. Many argue the democrats shot themselves in the foot by picking a candidate so mired in controversy (not that Trump was any less so). Others argue that people just wanted America to be “great again”. Analyses will be pouring in for years.

Regardless, a new president will be in the white house in 2017, and Latinos, both legal and illegal, will be looking at the next four years very carefully.

Peace at Long Last? Not so fast


Last month, I wrote about an imminent peace deal between Colombia and FARC. It appeared as though fifty years of war would be laid to rest pending referendums on the deal. I was happy. My social media timelines were happy. After five decades of fighting, the world’s longest ongoing conflict was about to end.

Not so fast. Today, my social media timelines look quite different.

In a shock to many (including my parents—who are Salvadoran, but nevertheless have lived through the atrocities of war—and I), Colombians cast their ballots on the referendum and voted “NO”. They rejected the peace deal. Preliminary surveys suggested that “YES” would win by a 2 to 1 margin.

2 to 1.

So, similar to this year’s Brexit vote, it comes as a shock that the peace deal was rejected by such a razor thin margin: 50.25 to 49.75 percent.

The news is only a few hours old as I write this, so details and speculation on what the results mean for the country moving forward will arrive in the coming days. We know a few things, though:

Voter turnout was dismal. Early reports say that less than 40 percent of eligible voters cast a vote in the referendum. A few assumptions can be drawn out from this.

One is that heavy rains off the Colombian coast affected overall voter turnout. But can we blame bad weather for the decision of the 60 percent who didn’t vote?

In my previous post, I suggested that accepting FARC rebels’ reintegration into society could be a hard pill for Colombians to swallow. The sharp divide between the “YES” and the “NO” camps in the referendum highlights the polarization of public opinion towards forgiving and/or forgetting past crimes.

FARC has been accused of financing their operation by kidnappings and drug trafficking—accusations which they deny, but also operations which Colombians were tired of from the Escobar era. It seems as though those who voted “NO” did not see justice in accepting a peace deal that would have left FARC rebels unprosecuted.

In a broader picture, this is a compromise that many Latin Americans who have been affected by violence have had to face: should criminals who have exploited state failures be left unprosecuted in the name of “peace” or “progress”? It’s a loaded question with many arguments in the “pro” and “against” camps. Past truces brokered between gangs and criminals have left sour tastes in many Latin American mouths. It would seem as though Colombia’s case isn’t any different.

And state failure breeds another unfortunate trend: apathy toward government. A history of mistrust has plagued Latin American governments because of corruption and transparency issues trickling through all levels of the state. Unfortunately, it has bred an attitude of “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” among citizens. This is just speculation on my part, but given the turbulent political history within the region (one which I have researched), I think it’s a factor worth considering.

FARC issued a press release shortly after the results were announced. The rebel group vows to continue looking for a peaceful end to the conflict.

In spite of the failed peace referendum, both sides seem to have not given up hope. Hours after the results came in, FARC issued a press release reiterating their intentions to continue their pursuit of a peace deal, saying that the only weapons they plan to use in the future are “words to build a better future”. Meanwhile, President Juan Santos announced that the FARC/Colombia ceasefire would remain in effect.

I mentioned in my previous post that sunny ways are still far off in the horizon. Unfortunately, they are further off than I had anticipated, and today’s events have tested the enormous levels of patience, persistence, and compromise required by all parties in the peace process. However, if there’s any silver lining to today’s events, its that both sides continue to show willingness to pursue a peaceful solution to their half-century old conflict.

Colombia Rejoices: Peace at Long Last


Instead of going with my usual essay/blog format, I’ve decided quickly comment on something positive.

Hidden beneath the stories of the 2016 Rio Olympics last month was a story that quietly sneaked into international headlines. You almost had to look with a magnifying glass to see it.

The Colombian War is over. The government and the country’s rebel group, FARC, agreed to a peace treaty, which is waiting to be voted on by FARC members next month.

Colombians and Latin Americans rejoiced. Personally, I was convinced I would father my own children before I ever saw the day.

Like most Latin American countries in the 20th Century, Colombia has witnessed the crippling effects of armed conflicts. Aside from the infamous drug cartels and operations that have been made known to the world through pop-culture, this grittier, decades-long conflict took place over a course of 52 years.

Half a century! Imagine that. Multiple generations of Colombian families have never tasted peace. In that time, Colombia’s military spending increased drastically—according to World Bank data, since 2000, Colombia has devoted at least 3% of its GDP toward military spending. Between 2000 and 2010, the country’s military spending doubled from $5.7 bn to $10.4bn (found on p. 16 of the Financial Times)

The peace process started in June and wrapped up in late August. The deal stipulates that the FARC rebel group will disarm within 6 months following the deal and become a legitimate political party, the same way the FMLN in El Salvador went from being a rebel group to the country’s dominant left-wing party.

Peace is great. But the challenges to reintegrate to society are only beginning for FARC.

It’s been alleged that FARC financed its operations through sketchy deals, ones which included drug trafficking and kidnappings–allegations which FARC denies. As a result, some Colombians don’t look at the ex-rebel group too kindly.

From an outsider’s perspective, it will be a case study on how (or if) Colombians forgive and/or forget the conflict’s past—if it’s anything like the public sentiment towards street gangs in Central America (which usually calls for “exterminating the roaches/rats”), the estimated 15,000-18,000 ex-FARC fighters–some of whom have been FARC fighters for the majority of their lives (these include militia and troops)–could run into some rough terrain. What will state support for their reintegration into society look like?

There’s also the question of what happens to the soldiers on the government’s side: soldiers who were trained to fight may be called upon to adopt a more civic, policing role. How will they deal with this new responsibility?

There are many questions surrounding the future of Colombia, but Colombia laid the first bricks for a road to a brighter tomorrow. Sunny ways are still far off in the horizon, but it has stopped raining bullets. And that’s something the world should rejoice about.

Brexit to Central America: Is the Central American Union Possible?

brexit EU

June 23 2016 will be a day for history books.

In a textbook case of participatory democracy, the UK stunned the world by voting to exit the European Union. What comes next is unknown; it will take time for the dust to settle and for I’s to be crossed and T’s to be dotted (or is it the other way around?), but there has been no shortage of drama since the historic vote.

One of the reasons Brexit made international headlines is because of the geopolitical weight it carries: the European Union was established to foster political and economic unity across a continent that had been at war with itself for centuries. It facilitated the flow of people in and out of countries, trade regulations, and created a common currency across the continent. UK’s vote to exit has sparked a domino effect among other national pro-exit groups which have called for referendums.

That said, the EU is a sophisticated model that has seen success.

The situation has presented a curious question around my social groups: could the same model be applied to Central America?

I said “no”. Not yet, anyway. A debate ensued.

Mistakes from the Past

Central America had a version of a “European Union” almost 200 years ago, albeit with some differences—rather than uniting nation states the same way the EU does, the Central American version aimed to unite provinces.

In 1823, following their separation from the Spanish Empire, the Central American countries—what are now Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica—as well as what is now the Mexican state Chiapas, formed their own federation, The Federal Republic of Central America. Similarly to the EU, the FRCA was meant to foster regional unity through trade and a common currency; while the provinces opted to leave the Spanish Empire, they retained the use of the Spanish Real (adopting it as the FRCA Real) as the common currency throughout the region (Gudmundson and Lindo-Fuentes, p. 35).

Provinces (and present-day countries) which made up the Federal Republic of Central America

Unfortunately, the FRCA didn’t replicate the successes of the European Union. It failed to generate economic and political unity among the six provinces.

Trade within the Republic was hard to establish—as Gudmundson and Lindo-Fuentes write, “it was said that no Central American producer or merchant was free of debts” (p. 33)—and it couldn’t establish a functioning credit system, either (Costa Rica was the only one of the provinces with some success). Moreover, although the FRCA kept the Real as its currency, the currency was scarce (bartering remained popular throughout the region). It also failed to establish a central bank (p. 35).

The provinces were so far apart on issues that the Republic eventually fell into a civil war.  Thus, the short-lived republic failed; by 1841, the FRCA had dissolved. The provinces separated and became the nation states they are today.

To underscore the failures of the FRCA, what followed after the separation was even more fighting between the countries—for instance, between 1841 and 1890, El Salvador had fought with Guatemala 5 times, Honduras 4 times, and Nicaragua once (White, p. 57, 2009).

In sum, rather than being brought together, the region was torn apart.

What about now?

The 20th Century saw Central American countries at peace with each other, minus a few hiccups here and there (such as The Soccer War of 1969, a brief battle fought between El Salvador and Honduras).

The 20th and 21st Century saw the formation of coalitions, commissions, trade agreements, and other international “buzzword” groups in Central and Latin America to address the region’s social, political, and economic problems. They mimic the many others which exist around the world, such as the EU, the European Parliament, The African Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, NATO, etc.

One of the big groups Central America is involved in is the Organization of American States. Others include:

    • The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC);
    • The Central American Integration System (SICA);
    • The United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (CEPAL);
    • The CA-4 Visa, which allows for free, unrestricted movement between Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala (similar to the EU’s free-movement model);

And many more. But these agreements and coalitions don’t have anywhere near the reach of the EU’s legislative power.

What is stopping the Union?

Nothing is preventing the creation of a union, but I offer two reasons against a Central American Union.

First, Central American economies aren’t robust enough for a union to function. High crime rates, slow economic growths, and high debt-to-GDP ratios plague the region, which in turn worsen the economic climate (see country analyses in Focus Economics). There is also the issue of government transparency which has plagued the countries in their post-1990s liberalized economies.

Central America is not ready for a EU-modeled union

Moreover, if a union was made, the strongest economies would be tasked with carrying the weight of the weaker ones. This means that Costa Rica and Panama, who are economically (and perhaps in terms of public policy) the top performers of the six countries within the isthmus of Central America, would be carrying the remaining four. This idea isn’t novel; others such as Nathaniel Parish Flannery have explored the implications of creating similar Latin American unions.

Second, and speaking to the first point, we can use history to see how past unions have failed. As I have outlined above, the original Federal Republic of Central America didn’t pan out as republicans had hoped because provinces clashed on political and economic matters. In the present day, the region is filled with a myriad of internal problems within its nation states (political accountability, gang activity, struggling economies). This is not the ideal climate for the creation of a united entity with a shared currency and sets of regulations.


Brexit brings many questions which will be answered in the months—and likely years—to come. It’s new territory for political observers, so whatever is on the other side of the “leave” vote is anyone’s (educated) guess.

If there is anything to learn from Brexit, it’s that these unions/federations don’t always accomplish the goals they set out. Britain chose to leave because 52% of Britons didn’t identify with the rest of Europe. Something similar happened in the Federal Republic of Central America: with no common identity, and no political and economic foundation, unity crumbled.

Creating a “Central American Union” in the present day would see history repeat itself. The countries within the region have enough issues to take care of on their own. Amalgamating them to tackle problems in the name of “development” would only hinder what progress they have made.