Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Iran

2008-04-17T23:15:10Z

Giovanni33: restored. why for removing, please?

{{Country
|name = جمهوری اسلامی ايران''<br/>Jomhūrī-ye Eslāmī-ye Īrān''
|map =Iran rel 2001.jpg
|flag =800px-Flag of Iran svg.png
|arms =Arms of Iran.png
|capital =Tehran
|capital-raw =
|government =Islamic Republic
|government-raw =
|language =Persian (Farsi)
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =636,372 sq. mi.
|pop =70,472,846 (2006)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =$610 billion
|gdp-year =2006
|gdp-pc =$8,700
|currency =Iranian rial
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Iran''', officially '''The Islamic Republic of Iran''' (جمهوری اسلامی ايران) is a [[theocracy|theocratic]] [[country]] in southwest [[Asia]]. Its capital is [[Tehran]] and its official language is Farsi.

==People==
Iran is a pluralistic society. Persians are the largest predominant ethnic and cultural group in this country, though many are actually of mixed ancestry. The population of the country has important Turkic elements (e.g., Azeris) and Arabs predominate in the southwest. In addition, Iranian citizens include Kurds, Balochi, Bakhtyari, Lurs, and other smaller minorities, such as Armenians, Assyrians, Jews, and Brahuis (or Brohi).
*Population (2007): 65.4 million.
*Population growth rate (2007 est.): 0.663%.
*Ethnic groups: Persians 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%.
*Religions: Shi'a Muslim 89%; Sunni Muslim 9%; Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 2%.
*Languages: Persian and Persian dialects 58%, Turkic languages (besides Turkish) 26%, Kurdish 9%, Luri 2%, Balochi 1%, Arabic 1%, Turkish 1%, other 2%.
*Education: Literacy (total population age 15 and over who can read and write, 2003)--79% (male: 86%, female: 73%).
*Health (2007 est.): Infant mortality rate--38.2 deaths/1,000 live births. Life expectancy at birth (2007)--total population: 70.56 yrs.

The 1979 Islamic revolution and the 1980-88 war with Iraq transformed Iran's class structure politically, socially, and economically. During this period, Shia clerics took a more dominant position in politics and nearly all aspects of Iranian life, both urban and rural. After the fall of the Pahlavi regime in 1979, much of the urban upper class of prominent merchants, industrialists, and professionals, favored by the former monarch, the shah, lost standing and influence to the senior clergy and their supporters. Bazaar merchants, who were allied with the clergy against the Pahlavi shahs, also have gained political and economic power since the revolution. The urban working class has enjoyed somewhat enhanced status and economic mobility, spurred in part by opportunities provided by revolutionary organizations and the government bureaucracy. Though the number of clergy holding senior positions in the parliament and elsewhere in government has declined since the 1979 revolution, Iran has nevertheless witnessed the rise of a post-revolutionary elite among lay people who are strongly committed to the preservation of the Islamic Republic.

Most Iranians are Muslims; 89% belong to the Shi'a branch of Islam, the official state religion, and about 9% belong to the Sunni branch, which predominates in neighboring Muslim countries. Non-Muslim minorities include Zoroastrians, Jews, Baha'is, and Christians.

==Government==
The December 1979 Iranian constitution defines the political, economic, and social order of the Islamic republic. The document establishes Shi'a Islam of the Twelver (Jaafari) sect as Iran's official religion. Sunni Islam, [[Zoroastrianism]], [[Judaism]] and Christianity are the only other recognized, legal minority religions. The country is governed by secular and religious leaders through governing bodies, whose duties often overlap.

The Supreme Leader holds power for life unless removed by the Assembly of Experts. He has final say on all domestic, foreign, and security policies for Iran, though he establishes and supervises those policies in consultation with the Expediency Council. The Leader is the final arbiter on all differences or disputes among the various branches of government. He appoints officials to key positions including the head of judiciary and the 12 members of the Guardian Council (six directly, six indirectly). He has power to remove the president and is commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

The constitution stipulates that the Assembly of Experts, which currently consists of the 86 popularly-elected clerics elected to 8-year terms, chooses the Supreme Leader based on jurisprudent qualifications and commitment to the principles of the revolution. The Assembly of Experts reviews his performance periodically and has the power to depose and replace him. Pragmatic conservative candidates generally polled better than their hardline conservative opponents during the December 15, 2006 elections to the Assembly of Experts. (Turnout for this vote, which coincided with municipal council elections, was quite high, topping 60%.) Citizens will not vote for representatives to the Assembly again until 2014.

The Council of Guardians consists of 12 persons. The Supreme Leader appoints the six religious members of the Council of Guardians while the Iranian parliament, the Majles, selects the six lay members from candidates recommended by the judiciary, which is in turn selected by the Supreme Leader. The non-clerics play a role only in determining whether legislation before the [[Majles]] conforms to Iran's constitution. The religious members, on the other hand, take part in all deliberations, considering all bills for conformity to Islamic principles. The Council of Guardians can veto any law. This body also certifies the competence of candidates for the presidency, the Assembly of Experts, and the Majles.

The president of the Islamic Republic of Iran is elected by universal suffrage to a 4-year term. The president supervises the affairs of the executive branch, appointing and supervising the Council of Ministers (members of the cabinet), coordinating government decisions, and selecting government policies to be placed before the National Assembly.

The Majles, or National Assembly, consists of 290 members elected to 4-year terms. The members of the legislature are elected by direct and secret ballot from among the candidates approved by the Council of Guardians.

In 1988, Ayatollah Khomeini created the Council for Expediency, which resolves legislative issues on which the Majles and the Council of Guardians fail to reach an agreement. Since 1989, it has been used to advise the national religious leader on matters of national policy as well. It is composed of the president, the speaker of the Majles, the judiciary chief, the clerical members of the Council of Guardians, and other members appointed by the Supreme Leader for 3-year terms. Cabinet members and Majles committee chairs also serve as temporary members when issues under their jurisdictions are considered. In 2005, it was announced that the Expediency Council, which now has over 40 members, would have responsibility for general supervision of the system, though that has not resulted in any noticeable change in this institution's day-to-day authority or operations.

Judicial authority is constitutionally vested in the Supreme Court and the four-member High Council of the Judiciary; these are two separate groups with overlapping responsibilities and have one head. Together, they are responsible for supervising the enforcement of all laws and for establishing judicial and legal policies.

Iran has two military forces. The national military is charged with defending Iran's borders, while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is charged mainly with maintaining internal security.

Iran has 30 provinces managed by an appointed governor general. The provinces are further divided into counties, districts, and villages. Sixty percent of eligible voters took part in the first ever municipal and local council elections in 1999, though a lower percentage went to the polls in the second round in 2003. Turnout during the December 15, 2006 elections, during which citizens also elected Assembly of Expert representatives, was over 60%. The local councils select mayors.

The March 2008 elections resulted in the conservatives getting a significant lead in the polls, with Conservative politician Shahabeddin Sadr saying that, during early counting, 70 per cent of winners were "principlists" - a label conservatives use to describe their loyalty to the Islamic Republic's ideals.<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/15/2190618.htm Conservatives forge ahead in Iran parliament vote], [[ABC Online]], 15 March 2008</ref>.

===Principal Government Officials===
*Leader of the Islamic Revolution--Ali Hosseini-Khamenei
*President--Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad
*First Vice President--Parviz Davudi
*Foreign Minister--Manouchehr Mottaki
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Mohammad Javad Zarif

===Political Conditions===
Iran's post-revolution difficulties have included an 8-year war with Iraq, internal political struggles and unrest, and economic disorder. The early days of the regime were characterized by severe human rights violations and political turmoil, including the seizure of the U.S. Embassy compound and its occupants on 4 November 1979, by Iranian student militants. Iranian authorities released the 52 hostages only after 444 days of captivity.

By mid-1982, the clergy had won a succession of post-Revolution power struggles that eliminated first the center of the political spectrum and then the leftists, including the communist Tudeh party and the cult-like Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO). Assassinations, throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil, and other acts of violence punctuated this period. There has been some moderation of excesses since the early days of the revolution, and the country experienced a partial "thaw" in terms of political and social freedoms during the tenure of former president Khatami, but serious problems remained. The administration of President Ahmadi-Nejad has witnessed a crackdown on Iranian civil society, continued human rights violations, and worsening constraints on press freedom and civil liberties.

The Islamic Republican Party (IRP) was Iran's sole political party until its dissolution in 1987. Iran now has a variety of groups engaged in political activity; some are oriented along ideological lines or based on an identity group, others are more akin to professional political parties seeking members and recommending candidates for office. Some have been active participants in the Revolution's political life while others reject the state. Conservatives consistently thwarted the efforts of reformists during the Khatami era and have consolidated their control on power since the flawed elections for the seventh Majles in 2004 and president Ahmadi-Nejad's victory in 2005.

The Iranian Government has faced armed opposition from a number of groups, including the MEK (which the U.S. Government added to its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in 1999), the People's Fedayeen, and the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI).

===Foreign Relations===
Khomeini's revolutionary regime initiated sharp changes from the foreign policy pursued by the Shah, particularly in reversing the country's orientation toward the West. In the Middle East, Iran's only significant ally has been [[Syria]], but Iran has made strides in improving relations with its Gulf neighbors, particularly [[Saudi Arabia]].

Iran's foreign relations are based on sometimes competing objectives. Iran's pragmatic foreign policy goals include, not surprisingly, protecting itself from external threats and building trade ties. Iran has additionally been accused, however, of trying to export its fundamentalist revolution to other countries, sometimes supporting terrorist organizations, and its vehement anti-U.S. and anti-Israel stances are well-known. Senior Iranian officials directed Hezbollah to carry out the bombing of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA, the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association) building in Buenos Aires on July 18, 1994, killing 85 people and wounding scores of others. Out of the eight individuals indicted by the Government of Argentina in October 2006, the Interpol Executive Committee has recommended the issuance of Red Notices (international arrest warrants) against six: five former or current Iranian officials and one Lebanese Hezbollah leader.

In September 1980, during the U.S. hostage crisis, Iraq invaded Iran to take control of the waterway between the two countries, the Shatt al-Arab, although the conflict's underlying causes included each nation's overt desire for the overthrow of the other's government. Iran defended itself and demanded the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Iranian territory and the return to the status quo ante for the Shatt al-Arab as established under the 1975 Algiers Agreement signed by Iraq and Iran. Khomeini's government turned down an Iraqi cease-fire proposal in 1982, making a new demand for Saddam Hussein's removal as well. After eight punishing years of war, in July 1988, Iran at last agreed to UN Security Council Resolution 598 and the cease-fire was implemented on August 20, 1988. Neither nation had made any real gains in the war.

Iran's relations with many of its Arab neighbors have been strained by Iranian attempts to spread its Islamic revolution, a strictly ideological goal. In 1981, Iran supported a plot to overthrow the [[Bahrain Government]]. In 1983, Iran expressed support for Shi'ites who bombed Western embassies in Kuwait, and in 1987, Iranian pilgrims rioted during the hajj (pilgrimage) in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Nations with strong fundamentalist movements, such as Egypt and Algeria, also mistrust Iran. Iran backs Hezbollah (in Lebanon), Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, all of which are violently opposed to the Arab-Israeli peace process. In contrast, while relations with west European nations have been uneven, they have been driven primarily by pragmatic goals of trade and security. Iran has accepted stronger commercial ties but largely declined to deliver on key European political concerns such as human rights and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) acquisition efforts, particularly in the nuclear field, where the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been strongly critical of Iran.

An IAEA report in November 2003 provided evidence that Iran, a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), had concealed secret nuclear activities for 18 years. Under international pressure, Iran signed the Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement on December 18, 2003, agreeing to suspend all uranium-enrichment and reprocessing activities voluntarily, as well as cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in resolving questions regarding Iran's nuclear program. In June 2004, the IAEA rebuked Iran for failing to fully cooperate with an inquiry into its nuclear activities, and in November 2004, Iran agreed to suspend most of its uranium enrichment under a deal with the EU. That promise did not last, however, and since then concerns over Iran's nuclear activities have increased.

On June 6, 2006, [[China]], [[France]], [[Germany]], [[Russia]], the [[United States]], and [[United Kingdom]] offered Iran a substantial package of economic cooperation and assistance. Tehran, however, was first required to come into compliance with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines on its nuclear program, suspending its [[uranium]] enrichment program. On July 31, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1696 on the Iranian nuclear question, requiring Iran to suspend all activities related to enrichment and reprocessing, including research and development, as demanded by the IAEA, or else face possible sanctions. Tehran defied the UN Security Council (UNSC) deadline of August 31, leading to the passage of UNSC Resolution 1636 in December 2006 and, as Iran continued to balk, Resolution 1747 in March 2007.

Iran sparked an international controversy when its forces seized and held hostage 15 British sailors and marines, conducting routine anti-smuggling operations in Iraqi territorial waters under UN mandate, on March 23, 2007. Tehran released the U.K. service members on April 6.

Iran maintains regular diplomatic and commercial relations with Russia and the former Soviet republics. Both Iran and Russia believe they have important national interests at stake in developments in Central Asia and the Transcaucasus, particularly regarding energy resources from the Caspian Sea. Russian and other sales of military equipment and technology to Iran concern Iran's neighbors and the United States. Washington is also concerned about Russian assistance in building at nuclear facility at Bushehr.

Iran spends about 3.3% of its GDP on its military. Iran's military consists of both a national military held over from the shah's government and the IRGC, each with its own ground, naval and air branches. The Iran-Iraq war took a heavy toll on these military forces. Iran is trying to modernize its military, including ballistic missile programs, and acquire weapons of mass destruction; it continues to seek nuclear capabilities. On November 7, 2007, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had 3,000 centrifuges operating in its uranium enrichment program, which would be enough to produce a nuclear weapon. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308903,00.html</ref> However, a December, 2007 U.S. intelligence report stated that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003, and remains on hold. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, "We do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071203/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc Report contradicts Bush on Iran nuclean program]</ref>

===Relations with the United States===
On November 4, 1979, militant Iranian students occupied the American Embassy in Tehran with the support of Ayatollah Khomeini. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days. On April 7, 1980, the United States broke diplomatic relations with Iran, and on April 24, 1981, the Swiss Government assumed representation of U.S. interests in Tehran. Iranian interests in the United States are represented by the Government of Pakistan. The Islamic Republic of Iran does not have its own embassy in Washington, though it does have a permanent mission to the United Nations in New York City.

In accordance with the Algiers declaration of January 20, 1981, the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal (located in The Hague, Netherlands) was established for the purpose of handling claims of U.S. nationals against Iran and of Iranian nationals against the United States. U.S. contact with Iran through The Hague covers only legal matters.

The U.S. Government, by Executive Orders issued by the President as well as by Congressional legislation, prohibits most trade with Iran. Some sanctions were imposed on Iran because Tehran is a state sponsor of terrorism, others because of the nuclear proliferation issues, and still more for human rights violations, including infringement of religious freedom. The commercial relations that do exist between the two countries consist mainly of Iranian purchases of food and medical products and U.S. imports of carpets and food. Some sanctions were temporarily waived in the wake of the devastating Bam earthquake of December 2003. U.S. officials and relief workers actively assisted in relief and reconstruction efforts.

There are serious obstacles to improved relations between the two countries. As a state sponsor of terrorism, Iran remains an impediment to international efforts to locate and prosecute terrorists. Recent attempts by Iran to form loose alliances with anti-U.S. governments in the Western Hemisphere, such as the Venezuelan Government, has further heightened concern about Iran's support for terrorism and nuclear ambitions. Operation Iraqi Freedom removed the Iranian Government's greatest security threat, but officially Iran remained neutral about U.S. policy, sometimes strongly condemning American policies and actions in Iraq. Iran has cultural ties to elements of the populations of both Iraq and Afghanistan. It has made some positive contributions to stability in both countries, but other actions have had the opposite effect. It remains to be seen whether Tehran will ultimately be a constructive force in the reconstruction of its two neighbors or not.

The U.S. Government defines its areas of objectionable Iranian behavior as the following:
*Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction;
*Its support for and involvement in international terrorism;
*Its support for violent opposition to the Middle East peace process, as well as its harmful activities particularly in Lebanon, as well as in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the region; and
*Its dismal human rights record and lack of respect for its own people.

The United States has held discussions with Iranian representatives on particular issues of concern over the years. U.S. and Iranian envoys cooperated during operations to overthrow the Taliban in 2001 and during the Bonn Conference in 2002 that established a broad-based government for the Afghan people under President Karzai. The Secretary of State, her Iranian counterpart, and others met at talks on Iraq in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, on May 3, 2007. The American and Iranian ambassadors to Iraq took part in face-to-face discussions in Baghdad, with Iraqi officials in attendance, on May 28, 2007. The United States believes, however, that normal relations are impossible until Iran's policies change.

Nevertheless, the U.S. State Department is supporting efforts to further the cause of democracy in Iran. In fiscal year (FY) 2006, the U.S. Congress allocated approximately $66 million to promote free media, personal freedom, and a better understanding of western values and culture. As part of these efforts, the Department supports efforts to develop civil society in Iran and exchange programs that bring Iranian students, athletes, professionals and others to the United States.

The Secretary of State has stated that Iranian agreement to abide by UNSC Resolutions 1696 and 1747, calling for Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment and comply with its international nuclear obligations, could lead to the direct negotiations between American and Iranian government officials, not only on Iran's nuclear case but on a wide range of issues.

In May 2007, the Iranian Government charged and in some cases imprisoned a handful of innocent Iranian-American scholars, civil society actors, and journalists, accused by the regime of jeopardizing the security of the state. The international community, academic institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and private citizens have joined the U.S. Government in calling for the release of the detained dual nationals, as well as Iranian cooperation in the case of missing retired FBI agent Robert Levinson, last reported on Kish Island, Iran, on March 8, 2007.

An article in the [[Asia Times Online]] by an Indian diplomat asserts that the United States is providing aid to rebels in [[Iran]], who are currently engaged in a revolt against the [[Tehran]] government. [[Stratfor]], a think tank with ties to the American military and intelligence establishments, reported that militant anti-government groups are receiving aid from foreign intelligence agencies. In addition Stratfor stated, "The US-Iranian standoff has reached a high level of intensity ... a [[Low intensity warfare|covert war]] [is] being played out ... the United States has likely ramped up support for Iran's oppressed minorities in an attempt to push the Iranian regime toward a negotiated settlement over Iraq." The state controlled [[media of Iran]] reported that this is an attempt to stir up sectarian violence inside Iran. An Asian Times article refers to this as part of a U.S. policy of continuous fomenting of ethnic strife and sponsorship of terrorism in Iran.<ref name="Asia Times">{{cite journal
|first=M. K.
|last=Bhadrakumar
|date=[[February 24]], [[2007]]
|title=Foreign devils in the Iranian mountains
|publisher=[[Asia Times Online]]
|url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB24Ak01.html
}}</ref><ref name="ZAHEDAN">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/world/middleeast/15tehran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Car bomb in Iran destroys a bus carrying Revolutionary Guards] The New York Times</ref>

====Jundullah====
The [[Sunni]] militant organization [[Jundallah]] has been identified as a terrorist organization by Iran and Pakistan<ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/16/iran.bombing/|title=2nd blast in 3 days hits Iranian city|publisher=CNN|date=2007-02-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsline.com.pk/NewsAug2004/cover1Aug2004.htm|title=Al-Qaeda's New Face|publisher=Newsline|date=2004-08-15}}</ref>. According to an April 2007 report by [[Brian Ross (journalist)|Brian Ross]] and [[Christopher Isham]] of [[ABC News]], the [[United States government]] had been secretly encouraging and advising the Jundullah in its attacks against Iranian targets. This support is said to have started in 2005 and arranged so that the United States provided no direct funding to the group, which would require congressional oversight and attract media attention.<ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html TThe Secret War Against Iran]</ref> The report was denied by [[Pakistan]] official sources <ref name="Rood"> Justin Rood and Gretchen Peters, [http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/pakistan_denoun.html Pakistan Denounces ABC News Report on Backing Iran Radicals], [[ABC News]], [[April 5]], [[2007]] </ref>.

[[Alexis Debat]], one of the sources quoted by Ross and Isham in in their report alleging US support for the Jundullah, resigned from ABC News in June 2007, after ABC officials discovered he faked several interviews while working for the company. <ref name="WP"> [[Howard Kurtz]], [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091202333.html?sub=AR Consultant Probed in Bogus Interview], ''[[The Washington Post]]'', [[September 13]], [[2007]] {{en icon}}</ref>.

Brian Ross, the correspondent who worked most closely with Mr. Debat, said the Jundullah story had many sources. “We’re only worried about the things Debat supplied, not about the substance of that story,” he said in regard to the Jundullah report.So far, ABC has found nothing that would undermine the stories Mr. Debat worked on, Mr. Ross said last night. But he acknowledged that as the stories of fabrications continue to roll in, the network “at some point has to question whether anything he said can be believed.”<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/media/15abc.html?ex=1347508800&en=ade79fbecbd7f5de&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Former ABC Consultant Says He Faked Nothing]</ref>

[[Fars News Agency]], an Iranian state run news agency, reported that the United States government is involved in PRMI's terrorists acts.<ref>[http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8511270322 Fars News Agency :: 65 Suspects Arrested on Charges of Blast in Southeast Iran]</ref> On [[April 2]], [[2007]], [[Abdul Malik Rigi]], appeared on the Iranian branch of the [[Voice of America]], the official broadcasting service of the United States government, which identified Rigi as "the leader of popular Iranian resistance movement". This incident resulted in public condemnation by [[Persian-American]] communities in the U.S, as well as the Iranian regime.<ref>http://www.alalam.ir/english/en-NewsPage.asp?newsid=018030120070404130601</ref><ref>[http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=4710&sectionid=351020101 Press TV - VoA interviews Iranian terrorist culprit in a sign of backing]</ref><ref>[http://www.baztab.com/news/63969.php] (in Persian)</ref><ref>[http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/international/ticker/detail/Iranian_speaker_says_U_S_supports_terrorists.html?siteSect=143&sid=7692846&cKey=1175790190000 Iranian speaker says U.S. supports "terrorists" - swissinfo]</ref>

====People's Mujahedin of Iran====
In April 2007, [[CNN]] reported that the US military and the [[International Committee of the Red Cross]] were protecting the [[People's Mujahedin of Iran]], with the US army regularly escorting PMOI supply runs between [[Baghdad]] and its base, [[Camp Ashraf]].<ref name="cnn06apr07">{{Cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/|title= U.S. protects Iranian opposition group in Iraq|accessdate=2007-04-06|publisher=CNN|year=2007|author=Ware, Michael|work=CNN website, [[April 6]], [[2007]]. }}</ref> The PMOI have been designated as a [[terrorist organization]] by the United States (since 1997), [[Canada]], and [[Iran]].<ref name="eu-fto">{{cite journal | title=COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2005/847/CFSP| journal=Official Journal of the European Union| year=2005| volume=L 314| page=44| url=http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_314/l_31420051130en00410045.pdf}}</ref><ref name="crt">{{Cite web|url=http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82738.htm|title=Chapter 6 -- Terrorist Organizations|accessdate=2007-07-15|publisher=US Department of State|year=2007}}</ref> According to the [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref name="WSJ"> {{Cite |title= Iranian Imbroglio Gives New Boost To Odd Exile Group |date=2006-11-29|publisher=Wall Street Journal |year=2006|author=Andrew Higgins and Jay Solomon }}</ref> "senior diplomats in the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration say the PMOI figured prominently as a bargaining chip in a bridge-building effort with Tehran." The PMOI is also on the [[European Union]]'s blacklist of terrorist organizations, which lists 28 organizations, since 2002.<ref name="Bonnet"> [http://www.les4verites.com/Defense-des-Moudjahidines-du-peuple-312.html?PHPSESSID=469e4a14dbc8d2850715f4a791c00dea Défense des Moudjahidines du peuple], [[Yves Bonnet]], former director of the French [[Direction centrale des renseignements généraux|RG intelligence agency]] {{fr icon}} </ref> The enlistments included: [[U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations|Foreign Terrorist Organization]] by the United States in 1997 under the [[Immigration and Nationality Act]], and again in 2001 pursuant to section 1(b) of [[Executive Order 13224]]; as well as by the [[European Union]] (EU) in 2002.<ref>[http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_340/l_34020051223en00640066.pdf Council Decision], [[Council of the European Union]], [[December 21]], [[2005]]</ref> Its bank accounts were frozen in 2002 after the [[September 11 attacks]] and a call by the EU to block terrorist organizations' funding. However, the [[European Court of Justice]] has overturned this in December 2006 and has criticized the lack of "transparency" with which the blacklist is composed.<ref> [http://www.rfi.fr/actufr/afp/001/mon/061212185631.3avhw1zi.asp Terrorisme: la justice européenne appelle l'UE à justifier sa liste noire], ''[[Radio France International]]'', [[December 12]], [[2006]] {{fr icon}} </ref> However, the [[Council of the European Union|Council of the EU]] declared on [[30 January]] [[2007]] that it would maintain the organization on the blacklist.<ref> [http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/2831/69/ EU’s Ministers of Economic and Financial Affairs’ Council violates the verdict by the European Court], [[National Council of Resistance of Iran|NCRI]] website, [[February 1]], [[2007]]. </ref><ref>[http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/2832/70/ European Council is not above the law], NCRI website, [[February 2]], [[2007]] </ref> The EU-freezing of funds was lifted on [[December 12]], [[2006]] by the [[Court of First Instance|European Court of First Instance]].<ref name="lifted">http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp06/aff/cp060097en.pdf</ref> In 2003 the US State Department included the NCRI on the blacklist, under Executive Order 13224.<ref> [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/23311.htm US State Dept press statement] by [[Tom Casey (diplomat)|Tom Casey]], Acting Spokesman, [[August 15]], [[2003]] </ref>

According to a 2003 article by the New York Times, the US 1997 proscription of the group on the terrorist blacklist was done as "a goodwill gesture toward Iran's newly elected reform-minded president, [[Mohammad Khatami]]" (succeeded in 2005 by the more conservative [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]]).<ref name="Rubin">{{cite web| url=http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/2003-07-15.html| title= The Cult of Rajavi| first=New York Times| last=Rubin, Elizabeth| accessdate=2006-04-21}} {{en icon}}</ref> In 2002, 150 members of the [[United States Congress]] signed a letter calling for the lifting of this designation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-71383195.html|title=
U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo: Mujahedin offers hope for a new Iran|publisher=Rocky Mountain News|date=2003-01-07}}</ref> The PMOI have also tried to have the designation removed through several court cases in the U.S. The PMOI has now lost three appeals (1999, 2001 and 2003) to the US government to be removed from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and its terrorist status was reaffirmed each time. The PMOI has continued to protest worldwide against its listing, with the overt support of some US political figures.<ref name="au_act">{{Cite web|url=http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn43.htm|title=Behind the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MeK)|accessdate=2007-07-15|publisher=Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group, Parliament of Australia|year=2003|author=Nigel Brew}}</ref><ref>United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Argued [[April 2]], [[2004]] Decided [[July 9]], [[2004]], [http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/01-1480a.pdf No. 01-1480: National Council of Resistance of Iran v. Department of State]</ref>

Past supporters of the PMOI have included Rep. [[Tom Tancredo]] (R-CO), Rep. [[Bob Filner]], (D-CA), and Sen. [[Kit Bond]] (R-MO), and former [[Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]], "who became involved with the [PMOI] while a Republican senator from Missouri."<ref>Michael Isikoff, "[http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.30B.nswk.bagdad.htm Ashcroft's Baghdad Connection]: Why the attorney general and others in Washington have backed a terror group with ties to Iraq", ''Newsweek'' ([[26 September]] [[2002]]).</ref><ref name="gso">{{Cite web|url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050531-terror-list.htm|title=Group on U.S. terror list lobbies hard|accessdate=2007-07-15|publisher=United Press International|year=2005|author=Angela Woodall}}</ref> In 2000, 200 U.S. Congress members signed a statement endorsing the organization's cause.<ref name="newsweek">{{Cite web|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6242223/site/newsweek/ShadesofGray|title=Shades of Gray|accessdate=2007-07-15|publisher=Newsweek|year=2004|author=Michael Isikoff & Mark Hosenball}}</ref>

==Economy==
Pre-revolutionary Iran's economic development was rapid. Traditionally an agricultural society, by the 1970s Iran had achieved significant industrialization and economic modernization. However, the pace of growth had slowed dramatically by 1978, just before the Islamic revolution. Since the fall of the shah, economic recovery has proven elusive thanks to a combination of factors, including fluctuations in the global energy market. Economic activity was severely disrupted additionally by years of upheaval and uncertainty surrounding the revolution and the introduction of statist economic policies. These conditions were worsened by the war with Iraq and the decline in world oil prices beginning in late 1985. After the war with Iraq ended, the situation began to improve: Iran's GDP grew for two years running, partly from an oil windfall in 1990, and there was a substantial increase in imports. However, Iran had suffered a brain drain throughout the previous decade and wartime policies had resulted in a demographic explosion.

A decrease in oil revenues in 1991 and growing external debt dampened optimism for recovery. In March 1989, the government instituted a new 5-year plan for economic development, which loosened state control and allowed Iran to seek greater latitude in accessing foreign capital. Mismanagement and inefficient bureaucracy, as well as political and ideological infighting, hampered the formulation and execution of a consolidated economic policy, and the Iran fell short of the plan's goals while economic inequality was aggravated. Today, Iran's economy is a mixture of central planning, state ownership of oil and other large enterprises, village agriculture, and small-scale private trading and service ventures. Former President Khatami followed the market reform plans of his predecessor, President Rafsanjani, and indicated that he would pursue diversification of Iran's oil-reliant economy, although he made little progress toward that goal. High inflation and expansive public transfer programs, as well as powerful economic-political vested interests created obstacles for rapid reform.

During the 2005 election campaign, President Ahmadi-Nejad promised to redistribute oil revenues to the impoverished, fund large infrastructure projects, and privatize Iranian state enterprises. He has been criticized within Iran for not carrying through on many of his promises. While establishment of the Imam Reza fund for cheap loans to youth has been popular, a law increasing the minimum was revoked because of the huge strain on employers. The "Shares of Justice" program--distributing shares of state-owned enterprises to the poor--faces a number of potential problems.

Unemployment was estimated to be 20% for 2007, according to the International Monetary Fund. Unemployment, a major problem even before the revolution, has many causes, including population growth, high minimum wage level and other restrictive labor policies. Farmers and peasants enjoyed a psychological boost from the attention given them by the Islamic regime but hardly appear to be better off in economic terms. The government has made progress on rural development, including electrification and road building, but Iran still faces inefficiencies related to agricultural land usage which are politically difficult to reconcile. Agriculture also has suffered from shortages of capital, raw materials, and equipment, problems dating back to the 1980-1988 war with Iraq. (See Foreign Relations above.)

Although Islam guarantees the right to private ownership, banks and some industries--including the petroleum, transportation, utilities, and mining sectors--were nationalized after the revolution under Marxist-influenced economic policies. Starting under President Rafsanjani, Iran has pursued some privatization through its nascent equities markets. However, the industrial sector remains plagued by low labor productivity and shortages of raw materials and spare parts, and is uncompetitive against foreign imports.

Increases in the price of oil starting in 2003 have increased state revenue enormously and permitted a much larger degree of spending on social programs than previously anticipated. However, this has not eased economic hardships such as high unemployment and inflation. The proportion of the economy devoted to the development of weapons of mass destruction and military spending overall remains a contentious issue with leading Western nations.

Earnings from Iranian oil exports, projected at $57-$87 billion for 2007-2008, are placed into the Oil Stabilization Fund (OSF), originally designed as a Treasury safety net if oil prices dropped below $20/barrel. In practice, the government has drawn upon the OSF to cover over expenditures. Iran relies on oil for 80% of its export revenue, and 40% of total revenues. (Note: Iran's refining capacity is limited, and Tehran is a net gasoline importer, spending $2.6 billion for foreign gas in 2005.)
*GDP (purchasing power parity, 2006 est.): $599.2 billion.
*GDP (official exchange rate, 2006 est.): $193.5 billion.
*GDP real growth rate (2007 est.): 4.6%.
*GDP composition by sector (2006): Agriculture 11.2%, industry 41.7%, services 47.1%.
*Per capita income (2006 est.): $8,700.
*Work force: 24.36 million.
*Work force - by occupation (2001 est.): Agriculture 30%, industry 25%, services 45%.
*Unemployment rate (2007 est.): 20%.
*Natural resources: Petroleum, natural gas, coal, chromium, copper, iron ore, lead manganese, zinc, sulfur.
*Agriculture: Principal products--wheat, rice, other grains, sugar beets, fruits, nuts, cotton, dairy products, wool, caviar. Note: Iran is not self-sufficient in terms of food.
*Industry: Types--petroleum, petrochemicals, textiles, cement and building materials, food processing (particularly sugar refining and vegetable oil production), metal fabricating (particularly steel and copper), armaments.
*Trade (2007 est.): Exports--$56.9 billion: petroleum 80%, chemical and petrochemical products, carpets, fruits, nuts. Major export partners (2006): Japan (17.3%), China (11.4%), Italy (6.2%), South Korea (5.2%), South Africa (5.5%), Turkey (5.7%), Netherlands (4.6%), France (4.1%), Taiwan (4.1%). Imports--$48.1 billion: industrial raw materials and intermediate goods, capital goods, foodstuffs and other consumer goods, technical services, military supplies. Major import partners: Germany (14.2%), U.A.E. (6.7%), China (8.3%), Italy (7.5%), France (6.2%), South Korea (5.4%), Russia (4.9%).

== History ==
The ancient nation of Iran, historically known to the West as [[Persia]] and once a major empire in its own right, has been overrun frequently and has had its territory altered throughout the centuries. Invaded by Arabs, Seljuk Turks, Mongols, and others--and often caught up in the affairs of larger powers--Iran has always reasserted its national identity and has developed as a distinct political and cultural entity.

The sixth millennium B.C. saw a fairly sophisticated agricultural society and proto-urban population centers. Many dynasties have ruled Iran, starting with the Achaemenid (559-330 B.C.) founded by [[Cyrus the Great]]. After the conquest of Persia by [[Alexander the Great]] and the Hellenistic period (300-250 B.C.) came the Parthian (250 B.C.-226 A.D.) and the Sassanian (226-651) dynasties.

The seventh century Arab-Muslim conquest of Iran was followed with invasions by the Seljuk Turks and the Mongols. Iran underwent something of a revival under the Safavid dynasty (1502-1736), the most prominent figure of which was Shah Abbas, who expelled the Uzbeks and Ottomans from Persia. The conqueror Nadir Shah and his successors were followed by the Zand dynasty, founded by Karim Khan, and later the Qajar (1795-1925) and the Pahlavi dynasties (1925-1979).

Modern Iranian history began with a nationalist uprising against the Shah in 1905 and the establishment of a limited constitutional monarchy in 1906. The discovery of oil in 1908 would later become a key factor in Iranian history and development.

In 1921, Reza Khan, an Iranian officer of the Persian Cossack Brigade, seized control of the government. In 1925, having ousted the Qajar dynasty, he made himself Shah and established the Pahlavi dynasty, ruling as Reza Shah for almost 16 years.

Under Reza Shah's reign, Iran began to modernize and to secularize, and the central government reasserted its authority over the tribes and provinces. During World War Two the Allies feared the monarch close relations with Nazi Germany. In September 1941, following the occupation of western Iran by the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, Reza Shah was forced to abdicate. His son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, became Shah and would rule until 1979.

====1941-48====
During [[World War II]] Iran was openly partial to the Axis cause. A joint Anglo-Soviet military action began on 25 August 1941 when 40,000 Soviet troops entered Iran from the north and headed for Tehran. On the same day about 19,000 British Commonwealth troops, mostly in Indian brigades, entered from various directions. There was slight resistance on the part of Iranian troops but no force Iran could not have withstood the power of the occupying armies of British Empire and the Soviet Union, and German assistance by air was now as far away as Crete. On 30 August 1941 identical notes were submitted by the invading powers to the Iranian Government which accepted their terms on 9 September. On 16 September the Shah abdicated in favor of his son, [[Mohammed Reza Pahlevi]], and left the country. The next day Tehran was jointly occupied by the British and Soviet troops without show of military force.

The terms imposed by Tri-Partite Treaty of alliance signed on 29 January 1942 disavowed any designs against the territorial integrity of Iran or independence. Iran agreed to refrain from any act contrary to British or Soviet interests. <ref>[http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/persian/chapter01.htm#b2 United States Army in World War II], The Middle East Theater The Persian Corridor and Aid to Russia, T. H. Vail Motter, Center of Military History United States Army Washington, D.C., 2000. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 52-60791. First Printed 1952-CMH Pub 8-1.</ref>

Soviet political "agitprops," graduates from the Lenin Institute in Moscow, were dispatched to exploit whatever resentment and hostility toward the "imperialist warmongers" of the West they might encounter or stir up. The [[Tudeh party]], founded early in 1942, at once began to lay the ground work for the Communist uprisings which followed World War II. The Tudeh party, guided by the Soviet officials who at the same time were supervising the movement of American [[lend-lease]] aid to the Soviet Union through Iran, began openly agitating against the Anglo-Saxon "exploiters." By 1944 Iran's mushrooming, Soviet-financed Tudeh press openly called the British and Americans "[[fascists]]," "[[reactionary|reactionaries]]," and "[[imperialism|imperialist]]." <ref>[http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/yaltabet.html ''The Yalta Betrayal''], Felix Wittmer, Claxton Printers, 1953, pg. 20, 54.</ref>

====1949-79====
In 1949 the Angelo-Persian Oil Company negotiated an agreement with the Iranian government under which it would pay the government 25 to 30 per cent of its net profits, The British government controlled 52 per cent of the stock of the company. Under pressure from the the Shia clergy and members of the Communist [[Tudeh party]], the Iranian government led by Prime Minister [[Mohammed Mossadegh]] did not ratify the agreement and on May 2, 1951, nationalized ownership of the oil industry. In October Britain shut down Abadan, the world's largest refinery, on the Persian Gulf, and boycotted Iranian oil for the next two years. 30 per cent of Iran's national income previously came from oil exports. Iranian production fell from 424,000 barrels a day in 1947 to 59,000 in 1954, while Saudi Arabia rose from 246,000 barrels to 953,000, and Kuwait from 45,000 barrels to 953,000.
[[Image:Mossadeghriot.jpg|350px|right|thumb|Rioters raise a poster of Mossadegh at the palace gates of the Shah in August, 1953.]]
In January 1953 the Iranian parliament extended Mossadegh's dictatorial powers. The following month, Mossadegh denounced the Shah for intrigues with "foreign interests". On February 28 the Shah announced he would abdicate "for reasons of health". Serious riots followed when the Shah's supporters clashed with Mossadegh's supporters in the streets. The Shah canceled his plan of abdication. Meanwhile, the United States ambassador presented proposals to end the impasse with the United Kingdom, one proposal was for a consortium of oil companies to replace Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and buy from Iran's nationalized industry. Mossadegh rejected the suggestion and continued to complain about the boycott.

On July 19 Mossadegh disolved the Majlis and called for a plebiscite on August 2. The Tudeh party, which was staging violent demonstrations in the streets, by the end of July openly supported Mossadegh while the [[Soviet Union]] offered desperately needed economic assistance. Mossadegh received 99.4 per cent of the vote and on August 8 Soviet Premier [[Georgy Malenkov]] told the [[Supreme Soviet]] that the Soviet Union had been conducting negotiations with Iran since June and concluded a series of agreements on border, aid, and trade issues. The Shah, who still held the position of [[Head of State]], asked for the resignation of the government and appointed a successor.

When Mossadegh received word, he began mass arrests. Two days of chaos ensued. Rioters smashed statues of the Shah and his father and screamed, "Death to the Shah!" With assurances from the CIA, the Iranian Army turned against the officers Mossadegh installed, and drove rioters off the streets. On August 19, Mossadegh turned himself over to the Shah's forces and was jailed along with Tudeh leaders. In December he was sentenced to three years in solitary confinement. The Iranian economy and living standards of the people gradually recovered as oil exports regained a market share which had been decimated during the previous two years. The Shah, who could not be seen as too close to the West because of Iran's domestic situation, nevertheless expressed his understating of the importance of Iran's position in the region, and the world, as a bulwark against [[Containment|Soviet expansionism]].

The Shah recognized and secured formal diplomatic relations with [[Israel]] and did he participate in the Arab oil embargoes during the [[Six Day War]] of 1967 and [[Yom Kippur War ]] of 1973. The US and British Mediterranean Fleets were provided with oil by the Shah. During the Yom Kippur War the Shah deterred [[Sadam Hussein]] from playing any role by moving Iranian troops to the border, and with covert aid to the [[Kurds]] of Iraq which kept the Iraqi Army diverted.

====1979-1981====
[[Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini]] emerged as an active critic of the Shah's increasingly autocratic government. Khomeini was imprisoned and later exiled, but popular anti-government sentiment continued to spread.

During the Carter presidency, the State Department’s Bureau of Human Rights was headed by Patricia Derian, a liberal political activist who had worked in Mississippi during the American civil rights movement of the 1960s. Once appointed to State, Ms. Derian publicly deplored aspects of the Shah’s rule, particularly SAVAK, and issued low ratings for Iran’s and other pro-American government’s treatment of dissidents. Aligned with Derian in a general way was President Carter’s Ambassador to the United Nations, [[Andrew Young]], who on one occasion had referred to the Ayatollah Khomeini as a "saint." The American Ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, a veteran diplomat of many years experience and an acute observer of the stresses in Iranian society, sought to steer a middle course through the official U.S. debates on Iran. Nevertheless, when instructed, Sullivan also would remind the Shah of the State Department’s concern (and presumably President Carter’s) about the regime’s treatment of its enemies.

With the exception of Ms. Derian and members of her staff, it is unlikely that other American officials were ready to dump the Shah immediately and cast U.S. policy in the Gulf to the revolutionaries. What is clear, however, is that when the voices of critics were added to the activities of the demonstrators in Tehran and Washington, all of it lavished with media coverage, new and destabilizing aspects to United States policy were set in motion.

By the fall of 1978, events in Iran were moving fast. The Iranian armed forces—whose officer corps had been carefully cultivated by the Shah and had sworn a personal oath of allegiance to him—witnessed the growing disorder and violence in Tehran. Knowing of the Carter administration’s discomfort at attempts to repress it, the generals nevertheless urged the Shah to crack down. The result, enacted on the 7th of September, was "martial law" without exactly being martial law. Opponents of the Shah quickly found they could challenge their sovereign’s authority and court the foreign media.

Khomeini returned from exile in [[France]] to Teheran on 31 January 1979. On 11 February the Shah fled, and mobs armed with machine guns attacked the U.S. embassy. Iran’s armed forces did not respond. On 3 November 1979, the American embassy was stormed again, and 66 U.S. personnel were taken prisoner. Thirteen were released in a few days, but the remainder stayed captive in Iran until 30 minutes after Jimmy Carter had turned the White House over to Ronald Reagan at noon on 21 January 1981. <ref>Grinter, Dr. Lawrence E. [http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1983/jan-feb/grinter.html ''Avoiding the Burden: The Carter Doctrine in Perspective''] Vol. XXXIV, No. 2 (January-February 1983): 73-82. </ref>

====1984-2001====
In 1984 the Reagan administration as part of its policy of [[Containment]], and in seeking to secure an ally for [[Israel]], sought to repair the breach that occurred with a longtime ally in 1980. [[Oliver North]] of the National Security Council staff was dispatched to Tehran with a proposal to reconcile the United States and Israels differences with the Shia Islamic regime. The proposal entailed sales of Tow missiles to help Iran break the deadlock in the trench war with Iraq. The United States and its allies feared a militarized Iraq could pose a threat to the region, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, if Iraq emerged from the war as victor.

Iran needed the weapons after US arms sales were cutoff in the wake of the break in diplomatic relations. [[Iraq]] had invaded the majority [[Arab]] [[Khuzestan]] province in southwestern Iran in September 1980. The ensuing [[Iran-Iraq War]] lasted until 1988, when some naval operations by the [[United States]] against Iran impressed the impossibility of their position upon the Iranian leadership. Iran finally signed an armistice which ceded to Iraq the [[Shatt al-Arab]] waterway, the latter country's main war aim. Less than three years later, Iraq ceded it back to guarantee Iranian [[neutrality]] in the [[Gulf War]] against the United States.

After the war, Iran continued to support [[Hezbollah]], the most powerful [[Shiite]] militia in [[Lebanon]], which had waged war against the United States during the latter's intervention to end the [[1982 Israeli invasion]]. With Iran's assistance, Hezbollah launched [[terrorist]] attacks even against such clearly inoffensive countries as [[Argentina]], which seems to have been attacked because there were [[Jews]] there. The head of Iranian intelligence during the early 1990's, [[Ali Fallahian]], was indicted along with various Hezbollah operatives and an international arrest warrant was issued for him in March 2007, which the Iranians immediately appealed. This and the Iranian role in the 1996 [[Khobar Towers bombing]] prevented any normalization of relations, even after [[Mohammed Khatami]] became President of Iran in 1997 and made this one of the principal goals of his administration.

Khatami was seen by some in the West as a possible Iranian version of [[Mikhail Gorbachev]]. The [[United Kingdom]] reestablished relations with Iran in 1999. His coalition was dominated by persons who clearly wished to make Iran a normal country. However, the limitations of the President in the Iranian system allowed Iranian conservatives to marginalize his supporters and close media outlets friendly to his policies. Although he won reelection in 2001 and cooperated with the United States to some extent against their mutual enemy the [[Taliban]], his supporters were not able to take the next logical step that [[Boris Yeltsin]] and other anti-communist [[Russians]] did under Gorbachev, that is, unite to completely replace the existing political system. Because they had been able to outmaneuver him politically, Iranian conservatives also did not oblige with a corresponding [[coup d'etat]] against Khatami. Normal relations with the United States probably will require just this sort of replacement of the existing Iranian constitution, but the popularity of Khatami and congruent popular distaste for his successor indicates that may be possible without war.

====2001-present====
Iran is currently ruled by the Grand Ayatollah [[Ali Khamenei]], the second theocrat of the country, who has been in office since the death of Khomenei in 1989. He is considered to have a less extreme anti-Western bias than his predecessor. It is governed on a day-to-day basis by [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]], who is suspected by several Western nations to be developing [[nuclear weapons]] to use against [[Israel]] and [[America]]. Domestically, however, he is facing questioning and possible [[impeachment]] by the Iranian Parliament, who see him as too extreme. The relationship between these two could be compared to that between the [[king]] and the [[prime minister]] in a [[constitutional monarchy]], although students of Iranian politics hotly debate where the precise balance of power lies.

The Iranian constitution calls for a Presidential election once every four years (in practice, the year following Presidential elections in the United States). Candidates are selected by the [[Guardian Council]], an unelected clerical body. Presidents are limited to two terms as in the United States. While since 1981 no Iranian President has been defeated for reelection, elections lacking an incumbent have been quite lively, as was the 2005 election, which Ahmadinejad only won at the [[runoff]] stage.

Tensions between Iran and the United States have increased since Iran was identified by President Bush in January 2002 as part of the [[Axis of Evil]], and particularly since the 2005 election of Ahmadinejad. An attempt by the [[European Union]] to negotiate a surrender of or reduction in [[Iranian nuclear efforts]] failed, leading to the [[United Nations Security Council]] voting to impose limited [[sanctions]]. The United States has since lobbied for sanctions more along the lines of those imposed on 1990 upon [[Iraq]], which remained in place until the beginning of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] in 2003. Talks in March 2007 between U. S., Iranian, and [[Syrian]] diplomats at a regional conference organized by Iraq proved unproductive, although the willingness of the parties to talk was itself regarded by some as a sign that war had become somewhat less likely.

In spite of the relative overstretch of the U. S. [[military]], the utility of an attack on Iran, or at least its nuclear facilities, was a live [[debate]] among American opinion leaders throughout 2006. Objections to such an attack were mostly based upon the belief that this would represent the first step on a [[slippery slope]] to [[occupation]] of Iran, which would probably require [[conscription]] in the United States, a step [[conservatives]] and most military leaders oppose. The debate, however, appeared to have been won decisively by the hawks following the regime's suicidal decision in late March 2007 not to promptly release 15 British sailors and marines it had captured on March 23, 2007.

In 2007, [[NATO]] officials caught Iran "red-handed" shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the [[Taliban]] for use against NATO forces.<ref>''[http://www.aina.org/news/20070608101313.htm Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban]''. June 8, 2007. Assyrian International News Agency.</ref> The NATO officials stated that the incident was a "dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the [[United States]] and [[United Kingdom]]".<ref>''[http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.html Document: Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban]''. June 6, 2007. ABC News.</ref>

A [[United States]] intelligence report in 2007 noted growing public unrest in Iran over the bleak economic situation. <ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070824/ap_on_go_ot/us_iran;_ylt=AqDn5RrWdeIow5YjHjscMn2yFz4D Draft report logs bleak outlook for Iran. August 24, 2007. Associated Press. </ref>

[[Homosexuality|Homosexuals]] get the death penalty in Iran.
<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297982,00.html Iran Does Far Worse Than Ignore Gays, Critics Say] Fox News, September 25, 2007</ref>

==Further reading==
*[http://www.townhall.com/News/NewsArticle.aspx?contentGUID=e3d7a4b3-5763-41db-afaf-9f5b2304ca9f Iran: Western Spy Networks Discovered], May 26, 2007.
*[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21816881-38197,00.html Iranian-American charged with spying], May 29, 2007.

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/Iran|Articles about '''Iran''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [http://www.president.ir/eng/ Official website of the President of Iran]
* [http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/ The blog of the President of Iran]
* [http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articlenavigation/index.isc Encyclopædia Iranica]
* [http://www.wikiran.org/ WikIran Encyclopedia]

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5314.htm]}}

[[Category:Iran]]
[[Category:Asian Countries]]
[[Category:Middle Eastern Countries]]
[[Category:Muslim-Majority Countries]]

El Salvador

2008-04-17T23:13:23Z

Giovanni33: why did you revert?

{{Country
|name =''República de El Salvador''
|map =Elsalvador.jpg
|flag =Flag of El Salvador.png
|arms =Arms of El Salvador.png
|capital =San Salvador
|capital-raw =
|government =Republic
|government-raw =
|language =Spanish
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Antonio Saca
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =8,124 sq mi
|pop =6,948,073 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$36.246 billion (2005)
|gdp-pc =$5,515 (2005)
|currency =U.S. dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''El Salvador''' (''Republica de El Salvador'') is a [[republic]] in [[Central America]], bounded to its west by [[Guatemala]], to its north and east by [[Honduras]] and to its south by the [[Pacific Ocean]]. It has an area of 8,124 sq miles (21,041 sq km) and a population (2006) of 6.8 million. The capital is [[San Salvador]] (1998 pop 1.2 million).

==Geography==
El Salvador is largely mountainous, formed of numerous extinct [[volcano]]es.

==People==
El Salvador's population numbers about 5.7 million. Almost 90% is of mixed Indian and Spanish extraction. About 1% is indigenous; very few Indians have retained their customs and traditions. The country's people are largely Roman Catholic and Protestant. Spanish is the language spoken by virtually all inhabitants. The capital city of San Salvador has about 2.2 million people; an estimated 40.3% of El Salvador's population lives in rural areas.
*Population (2007 est.): 5.7 million.
*Annual growth rate (2005 est.): 1.7%.
*Ethnic groups: Mestizo 90%, indigenous 1%, Caucasian 9%.
*Religion: About 52% Roman Catholic, with significant and growing numbers of Protestant groups.
*Language: Spanish.
*Education: Free through ninth grade. Attendance (grades 1-9)-90.4%. Literacy--84.5% nationally; 76.3% in rural areas.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2003)--24.6/1,000. Life expectancy at birth (2006)--71.8 years.
*Work force (about 2.5 million, 2004): Agriculture--19.1%; services--49.8%; industry--16.8%; construction--6.4%; government--7.3%; other--0.6%.

==Government==
El Salvador is a democratic republic governed by a president and an 84-member unicameral Legislative Assembly. The president is elected by universal suffrage and serves for a 5-year term by absolute majority vote. A second round runoff is required in the event that no candidate receives more than 50% of the first round vote. Members of the assembly, also elected by universal suffrage, serve for 3-year terms. The country has an independent judiciary and Supreme Court. The next elections will be held in February and March 2009.

===National Civilian Police===
The civilian police force, created to replace the discredited public security forces, deployed its first officers in March 1993, and was present throughout the country by the end of 1994. The National Civilian Police (PNC) has about 16,000 officers. The United States, through the International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP), led international support for the PNC and the National Public Security Academy (ANSP), providing about $32 million in non-lethal equipment and training since 1992.

===Judiciary===
Both the Truth Commission and the Joint Group identified weaknesses in the judiciary and recommended solutions, the most dramatic being the replacement of all the magistrates on the Supreme Court. This recommendation was fulfilled in 1994 when an entirely new court was elected, but weaknesses remain. The process of replacing incompetent judges in the lower courts, and of strengthening the attorney generals' and public defender's offices, has moved more slowly. The government continues to work in all of these areas with the help of international donors, including the United States. Action on peace accord-driven constitutional reforms designed to improve the administration of justice was largely completed in 1996 with legislative approval of several amendments and the revision of the Criminal Procedure Code--with broad political consensus.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Elias Antonio "Tony" SACA
*Vice President--Ana Vilma Albanez DE ESCOBAR
*Minister of Foreign Relations--Francisco LAINEZ
*Ambassador to the United States--Rene Antonio Rodriguez LEON
*Representative to the OAS--Abigail CASTRO DE PEREZ
*Representative to the UN--Carmen Maria GALLARDO de Hernandez

===Political Landscape===
Hard-line conservatives, including some members of the military, created the Nationalist Republican Alliance party (ARENA) in 1981. ARENA almost won the election in 1984 with solid private sector and rural farmer support. By 1989, ARENA had attracted the support of business groups. Multiple factors contributed to ARENA victories in the 1988 legislative and 1989 presidential elections, including allegations of corruption in the ruling Christian Democratic party, poor relations with the private sector, and historically low prices for the nation's main agricultural exports.

The successes of Alfredo Cristiani's 1989-94 administration in achieving a peace agreement to end the civil war and in improving the nation's economy helped ARENA--led by former San Salvador mayor Armando Calderon Sol--keep both the presidency and a working majority in the Legislative Assembly in the 1994 elections. ARENA's legislative position was weakened in the 1997 elections, but it recovered its strength, helped by divisions in the opposition, in time for another victory in the 1999 presidential race, bringing President Francisco Guillermo Flores Perez to office. Flores concentrated on modernizing the economy and strengthening bilateral relations with the U.S. by becoming a committed partner in anti-terror efforts, sending troops to aid in the reconstruction of Iraq, and by playing a key role in negotiations for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

Taking advantage of both public apprehension of Flores' policies and ARENA infighting, the chief opposition party, the Farabundo Marti Liberation Front (FMLN), was able to score a significant victory against ARENA in the March 2003 legislative and municipal elections. ARENA, left with only 29 seats in the 84-seat Legislative Assembly, was forced to court the right-wing National Conciliation Party (PCN) in order to form a majority voting bloc. However, in 2003 the PCN entered into a loose partnership with the FMLN, further limiting ARENA's ability to maneuver in the legislature.

Despite these constraints, ARENA made a strong showing at the March 2004 presidential election, which was marked by an unprecedented 67% voter turnout. ARENA candidate Elias "Tony" Saca handily defeated the FMLN candidate and party head Schafik Handal, garnering 57.71% of the votes cast. Nevertheless, Saca faced a complex political environment.
The defeat of FMLN's presidential candidate rekindled an FMLN internal struggle between party hardliners and more moderate party members who saw the party's 2004 defeat as a call for reform. In addition, the PCN and the two parties that comprise the center/center-left coalition, the United Democratic Center (CDU) and the Christian Democratic Party (PDC), faced dissolution for failing to each capture at least 3% of the votes. Members of all three parties, whose deputies continued to hold seats in the legislature, publicly discussed creating new parties or aligning with existing ones.

In March 12, 2006 Legislative Assembly and municipal elections, the ruling ARENA party garnered 34 Assembly deputies and 147 mayoralties, while the opposition FMLN won 32 legislative seats and 51 city halls (plus 8 additional mayoralties in which they participated as part of a coalition). The PCN, PDC, and CD carried 10, 6, and 2 Legislative Assembly seats, respectively. As with the 2003-2006 Assembly, the combined 44 seats of ARENA and their center-right PCN allies are sufficient for all legislation requiring a 43-vote simple majority, while the FMLN can still block legislation requiring a two-thirds (56 vote) supermajority. El Salvador's political parties have already begun preparation and planning for 2009, when presidential, Legislative Assembly, and municipal elections will be held simultaneously for the first time since 1994.

===Foreign Relations===
El Salvador is a member of the United Nations and several of its specialized agencies, the Organization of American States (OAS), the Central American Common Market (CACM), the Central American Parliament, and the Central American Integration System. It actively participates in the Central American Security Commission (CASC), which seeks to promote regional arms control. From 2002-03, El Salvador was chair of the OAS anti-terrorism coordinating body, CICTE. El Salvador also is a member of the World Trade Organization and is pursuing regional free trade agreements. An active participant in the Summit of the Americas process, El Salvador chairs a working group on market access under the Free Trade Area of the Americas initiative. El Salvador has joined its six Central American neighbors in signing the Alliance for Sustainable Development, known as the Conjunta Centroamerica-USA or CONCAUSA to promote sustainable economic development in the region.

El Salvador enjoys normal diplomatic and trade relations with all of its neighboring countries including Honduras, with which it has previously had territorial disputes. While the two nations continue to disagree over the status of their maritime borders in the Gulf of Fonseca, they have agreed to settle their land-border disputes with the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In September 1992, the Court awarded most of the territory in question to Honduras. In January 1998, Honduras and El Salvador signed a border demarcation treaty to implement the terms of the ICJ decree although delays continue due to technical difficulties.

==Human Rights and Post-War Reforms==
During the 12-year civil war, human rights violations by both the government security forces and left-wing guerillas were rampant. The accords established a Truth Commission under UN auspices to investigate the most serious cases. The commission reported its findings in 1993. It recommended that those identified as human rights violators be removed from all government and military posts. Thereafter, the Legislative Assembly granted amnesty for political crimes committed during the war. Among those freed as a result were the Salvadoran Armed Forces (ESAF) officers convicted in the November 1989 Jesuit murders and the FMLN ex-combatants held for the 1991 murders of two U.S. servicemen. The peace accords also established the Ad Hoc Commission to evaluate the human rights record of the ESAF officer corps.

In accordance with the peace agreements, the constitution was amended to prohibit the military from playing an internal security role except under extraordinary circumstances. Demobilization of Salvadoran military forces generally proceeded on schedule throughout the process. The Treasury Police, National Guard, and National Police were abolished, and military intelligence functions were transferred to civilian control. By 1993--9 months ahead of schedule--the military had cut personnel from a war-time high of 63,000 to the level of 32,000 required by the peace accords. By 1999, ESAF strength stood at less than 15,000, including uniformed and non-uniformed personnel, consisting of personnel in the army, navy, and air force. A purge of military officers accused of human rights abuses and corruption was completed in 1993 in compliance with the Ad Hoc Commission's recommendations. The military's new doctrine, professionalism, and complete withdrawal from political and economic affairs leave it the most respected institution in El Salvador.

More than 35,000 eligible beneficiaries from among the former guerrillas and soldiers who fought the war received land under the peace accord-mandated land transfer program, which ended in January 1997. The majority of them also have received agricultural credits. The international community, the Salvadoran Government, the former rebels, and the various financial institutions involved in the process continue to work closely together to deal with follow-on issues resulting from the program.

==Economy==
The Salvadoran economy continues to benefit from a commitment to free markets and careful fiscal management. The economy has been growing at a steady and moderate pace since the signing of peace accords in 1992, and poverty has been cut from 66% in 1991 to 35.2 percent in 2005. Much of the improvement in El Salvador's economy is a result of free market policy initiatives carried out by ARENA governments, including the privatization of the banking system, telecommunications, public pensions, electrical distribution and some electrical generation; reduction of import duties; elimination of price controls; and improved enforcement of intellectual property rights. Capping those reforms, on January 1, 2001, the U.S. dollar became legal tender in El Salvador, and the economy is now fully dollarized.
*GDP (2006): $18.57 billion, PPP GDP (2006) $38.62 billion (IMF estimate)
*GDP annual real growth rate (2006): 4.2%.
*Per capita income (2006): $2,656.9, PPP per capita income $5,514.97 (IMF estimate)
*Agriculture (9.8% of GDP, 2006): Products--coffee, sugar, livestock, corn, poultry, and sorghum. Arable, cultivated, or pasture land--68% (2005).
*Industry (21.2% of GDP, 2006): Types--textiles and apparel, medicines, food and beverage processing, clothing, chemical products, petroleum products, electronics.
*Trade (2006): Exports--$3.5 billion: textiles and apparel, coffee, sugar, medicines, iron and steel products, tuna, light manufacturing, and paper products. Major markets--U.S. 57.1%, Central American Common Market (CACM) 29.2%. Imports--$7.6 billion: petroleum, iron products, machines and mechanical devices, cars, medicines, consumer goods, foodstuffs, capital goods, and raw industrial materials. Major suppliers--U.S. 40.46%, CACM 15.1%, Mexico 7.7%.

The Salvadoran government has maintained fiscal discipline during post-war reconstruction and reconstruction following earthquakes in 2001 and hurricanes in 1998 and 2005. Taxes levied by the government include a value added tax of 13%, income tax of 20%, excise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, and import duties. The VAT is the largest source of revenue, accounting for about 55.1% of total tax revenues in 2006. For December of 2007, El Salvador projects a fiscal surplus of 0.6% of GDP. El Salvador's public external debt in May 2007 was about $5.8 billion, 29.9 percent of GDP.

Years of civil war, fought largely in the rural areas, had a devastating impact on agricultural production in El Salvador. A fall in world coffee prices, once a major export earner for El Salvador, has also hurt rural employment. Seeking to develop new growth sectors and employment opportunities, El Salvador created new export industries through fiscal incentives for free trade zones. The largest beneficiary has been the textile and apparel (maquila) sector, which directly provides approximately 70,000 jobs. Services, including retail and financial, have also shown strong employment growth, with about 49.8% of the total labor force now employed in the sector. During the last three years foreign companies have set up 96 new subsidiaries providing 18,000 new jobs, mainly in maquilas, tourism, and telephone call centers.

Remittances from Salvadorans working in the United States are an important source of income for many families in El Salvador. In 2006, the Central Bank estimated that remittances totaled $3.3 billion, and UNDP surveys show that an estimated 22.3 percent of families receive them.

Under its export-led growth strategy launched in 1989, El Salvador has pursued economic integration with its Central American neighbors and negotiated trade agreements with the Dominican Republic, Chile, Mexico, Panama, Taiwan and the United States. The trade agreement with Taiwan will enter into force in 2008. Central America will begin negotiating an Association Agreement with the European Union in 2007. Agreements with Colombia and Canada are under negotiation while agreements with CARICOM and Israel are being considered. Exports in 2006 grew 3.7% while imports grew 11.6%. As in previous years, the large trade deficit was offset by family remittances.

The U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) implemented between El Salvador and the United States on March 1, 2006, provides El Salvador preferential access to U.S. markets. Textiles and apparel, shoes, and processed foods are among the sectors expected to benefit.

In addition to trade benefits, CAFTA-DR also promises to provide a framework for additional reforms on issues such as intellectual property rights, dispute resolution, and customs that will improve El Salvador's investment climate. For sensitive sectors such as agriculture, the agreement includes generous phase-in periods to allow Salvadoran producers an opportunity to become more competitive.

U.S. support for El Salvador's privatization of the electrical and telecommunications markets markedly expanded opportunities for U.S. investment in the country. More than 300 U.S. companies have established either a permanent commercial presence in El Salvador or work through representative offices in the country. The Department of Commerce maintains a Country Commercial Guide for U.S. businesses seeking detailed information on business opportunities in El Salvador.

==Natural Disasters==
Lying on the Pacific's earthquake-prone Ring of Fire and at latitudes plagued by hurricanes, El Salvador's history is a litany of catastrophe, including the Great Hurricane of 1780 that killed 22,000 in Central America and earthquakes in 1854 and 1917 that devastated El Salvador and destroyed most of the capital city. More recently, an October 1986 earthquake killed 1,400 and seriously damaged the nation's infrastructure; in 1998, Hurricane Mitch killed 10,000 in the region, although El Salvador--lacking a Caribbean coast--suffered less than Honduras and Nicaragua. Major earthquakes in January and February of 2001 took another 1,000 lives and left thousands more homeless and jobless. El Salvador's largest volcano, Santa Ana (also known by its indigenous name Ilamatepec), erupted in October 2005, spewing tons of sulfuric gas, ash, and rock on surrounding communities and coffee plantations and killing two people and permanently displaced 5,000. Also in October 2005, Hurricane Stan unleashed heavy rains that caused flooding throughout El Salvador. In all, the flooding caused 67 deaths, and more than 50,000 people were evacuated at some point during the crisis. Damages from the storm were estimated at $355.6 million.

==History==
The Pipil Indians, descendants of the Aztecs , and the Pocomames and Lencas were the original inhabitants of El Salvador,

The first Salvadoran territory visited by Spaniards was on Meanguera Island, located in the Gulf of Fonseca, where Spanish Admiral, Andrés Niño, lead an expedition to Central America and disembarked on May 31, 1522. In June 1524 the Spanish Captain Pedro de Alvarado started a war to conquest Cuzcatlan. His cousin Diego de Alvarado established the village of San Salvador in April 1525. In 1546, Charles I of Spain granted San Salvador the title of city.

During the subsequent years, the country evolved under Spanish rule; however, towards the end of the year 1810 many people began to express discontent. On November 5, 1811, when the Priest José Matias Delgado, clang the bells of La Merced Church in San Salvador, calling for insurrection, the people began to officially band together for freedom.

In 1821, El Salvador and the other Central American provinces declared their independence from Spain. When these provinces were joined with Mexico in early 1822, El Salvador resisted, insisting on autonomy for the Central American countries. In 1823, the United Provinces of Central America was formed of the five Central American states under Gen. Manuel Jose Arce. When this federation was dissolved in 1838, El Salvador became an independent republic. El Salvador's early history as an independent state--as with others in Central America--was marked by frequent revolutions; not until the period 1900-30 was relative stability achieved. Following a deterioration in the country's democratic institutions in the 1970s a period of civil war followed from 1980-1992. More than 75,000 people are estimated to have died in the conflict. In January 1992, after prolonged negotiations, the opposing sides signed peace accords which ended the war, brought the military under civilian control, and allowed the former guerillas to form a legitimate political party and participate in elections.

===El Salvador (1980-92)===
==== Background of Civil War ====
The [[Salvadoran Civil War]] was predominantly fought between the government of [[El Salvador]] and guerrilla groups between [[1980]] and [[1992]]. The US accused the [[Sandinistas]] in Nicaragua, who took power in 1979, of arming and training the guerrillas.<ref>"[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_v86/ai_4549750 Nicaragua's role in revolutionary internationalism - statement by Vernon A. Walters] ''US Department of State Bulletin'', October, 1986</ref>

In retrospective assessments, human rights organizations and truth commissions have echoed the claim that the majority of the violence was attributable to government forces.<ref>El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Americas Watch, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991</ref><ref>El Salvador: `Death Squads' — A Government Strategy. New York: Amnesty International, 1988. </ref><ref>From Madness to Hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador:
Report of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador, [http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_toc.html] </ref>A report of an Amnesty International investigative mission made public in 1984 stated that "many of the 40,000 people killed in the preceding five years had been murdered by government forces who openly dumped mutilated corpses in an apparent effort to terrorize the population."<ref>Amnesty International Annual Report, 1985</ref> In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992.<ref>El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Americas Watch, [[Human Rights Watch]] Books, Yale University Press, 1991, 107</ref><ref> Sunday, 24 March, 2002, U.S. role in Salvador's brutal war, BBC News [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1891145.stm] </ref>

While peasants were primarily victimized, the killing of civilians extended to clergy, church workers, political activists, journalists, union members, health workers, students, teachers, and human rights monitors.<ref>El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Americas Watch, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991, p.vii</ref>The state terror took several forms. Salvadoran security forces, including army battalions, members of the National Guard, and the Treasury Police, performed numerous clearance operations, killing indiscriminately, and perpetrating many massacres and massive human rights violations in the process.<ref>McClintock, Mchael, The American Connection: State Terror and Popular Resistance in El Salvador, Zed Books, p.308</ref><ref>El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Americas Watch, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991, 47</ref>

[[Death squads]] worked in conjunction with Salvadoran Security services to eliminate opponents, leftist rebels, and their supporters.<ref>Martin, Gus, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues, Sage Publications, 2003,p.110.
</ref> The squads were a means by which members of the armed forces were able to avoid accountability. Typically dressing in plainclothes and using vehicles with smoke-tinted windows and numberless license plates, terror tactics included publishing death lists of future victims, delivering empty coffins to the doorsteps of future victims and sending potential victims invitations to their own funeral.<ref> El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Americas Watch, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991, 21 </ref> Cynthia Arnson, a long-time writer on Latin America for Human Rights Watch, argues that “the objective of death squad terror seemed not only elimination of opponents, but also, through torture and the gruesome disfiguration of bodies, the terrorization of the population.”<ref>Arnson, Cynthia J. Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador in “Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability”, Campbell and Brenner, eds,86</ref>
In the mid-1980s state terror in El Salvador increasingly took the form of indiscriminate air forces bombing, the planting of mines and harassment of national and international medical personnel- “all indicate that although death rates attributable to death squads have declined in El Salvador since 1983, non-combatant victims of the civil war have increased dramatically.<ref> Lopez, George A.- Terrorism in Latin America in “The Politics of Terrorism”, Michael Stohl, ed.</ref>

The rebels also committed human rights violations. It was considered legitimate to physically eliminate people who were labelled military targets, traitors or "orejas" (informers), and even political opponents. The murders of mayors, right-wing intellectuals, public officials and judges are examples of this mentality.[http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_casesA.html]

The [[FMLN]], one guerrilla groups, was also accused of human rights violations, using terrorist tactics such as kidnappings, arson, and bombings to destabilize the regime.[http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=228] It is now one of the two major political parties of the country.

==== US involvement ====
The United States has been accused by scholars and human rights organizations of complicity in support of State Terrorism in the country of El Salvador, in a conflict characterized by rampant [[human rights]] abuses and [[political terror]].<ref>Arnson, Cynthia J. Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador in “Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability”, Campbell and Brenner, eds, 85</ref> In his analysis of the U.N. Truth Commission's Report on El Salvador, Prof. Frederick Garneau argued for significant culpability on the part of United States governments.
{{quote|As is usually the case with truth commissions, the one for El Salvador did not focus on Washington's support for the government. .. That terror was committed in El Salvador is not disputed. Those who doubt this should reread the above and realize that an estimated 75,000 were killed in this small country in the period 1980 to 1991. The truth commission found that the terrorism that was committed in the country was overwhelmingly governmental terrorism, committed by the Salvadoran army, the National Guard, and their death squads and affiliated agencies. They were responsible for 95 percent of the deaths, the guerrillas for only five percent. These were the same institutions that were the concern and the favorites of Washington—receiving its indoctrination and training and profiting from its largess. El Salvador received six billion dollars in aid from Washington in the period 1979 to 1992. This subsidy to the tiny country during the government repression and terrorism came to average out at $100,000 for each member of its armed forces. This subsidy allowed the government to pay for the terrorist activities committed by the security forces. By virtue of this largess and the military training, notably in counterinsurgency warfare, Washington emerges in this chapter as an accessory before and during the fact. By covering up for San Salvador after it had committed terror, Washington was an accessory after the fact. It gave diplomatic support to state terrorism.|Frederick H. Gareau|<ref>Frederick H. Gareau, State Terrorism and the United States : From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism / (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2004) 41</ref>}}

The episode of the war responsible for the single largest civilian death toll occurred on December 11, 1981, when the U.S.-trained elite [[Atlacatl Battalion]] of the Salvadoran army killed approximately nine hundred men, women, and children in and around the village of [[El Mozote Massacre|El Mozote]]. Human rights violations included decapitation, raping young girls before killing them, and massacring men, women, and children in separate groups with U.S.-supplied M-16 rifles.<ref>Menjivar and Rodriquez, State Terror in the U.S.-Latin American Interstate Regime in “When States Kill: Latin America, the U.S., and Technologies of Terror”, Menjivar and Rodriguez, eds. University of Texas Press, 2004</ref> A report compiled by the villagers found that more half of the victims were under fourteen.<ref>Leogrande, William M. Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992, University of North Carolina Press,155</ref> It is reputed to be the worst such atrocity in modern [[Latin America]]n history,{{Fact|date=March 2008}} but when news emerged of the massacre, the [[Ronald Reagan|Reagan]] administration in the [[United States]] dismissed it as [[Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front|FMLN]] propaganda.<ref>{{cite book|title=Coffee and Power: Revolution and the Rise of Democracy in Central America |first=Jeffery M. |last=Paige |page=345 |year=1997 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=0-67413649-7}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=El Salvador: The Massacre at El Mozote : the Need to Remember |author=Americas Watch Committee |year=1992 |publisher=Americas Watch |page=15}}</ref>

The prototype of the El Salvadoran [[death squads]] was ORDEN, a paramilitary spy network that allegedly terrorized rural regions and which was founded by Col. Jose Alberto Medrano, a former agent on the CIA payroll. Medrano was awarded a silver medal in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, "in recognition of exceptionally meritorious service."<ref>Americas Watch Committee and American Civil Liberties Union, Report on Human Rights in El Salvador, January 26, 1982, p.183</ref><ref>Chomsky, Noam, Turning the Tide: The U.S. and Latin America, Black Rose Books, p.98</ref>

One of Medrano's proteges, [[Roberto D'Aubuisson]], a graduate of the Salvadoran military academy, was also trained at The [[School of the Americas]] and the International Police Academy in the suburbs of Washington D.C. <ref>Bonner, Raymond, Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador, New York Times Books,1984, p.308</ref> D'Aubuisson was founder of the [[Nationalist Republican Alliance]] (ARENA) whose public face was that of a rightist political party, but which allegedly also ran death squads secretly. In the spring of 1980, when D'Aubuisson was arrested for plotting against the administration of [[José Napoleón Duarte]], a mass of documents was found implicating him in numerous death squad activities, including detailed plans linked to the assassination of Archbishop [[Oscar Romero]]. The Reagan administration was accused of ignoring the evidence implicating D'Aubuisson.<ref>Bonner, Raymond, Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador, New York Times Books,1984, p.308</ref> Critics of this view argue that [[Roberto D'Aubuisson]]'s sole link to the SOA is that he had taken a course in Radio Operations long before El Salvador's civil war began.<ref>{{cite web|author=Paul Mulshine|title=The War in Central America Continues|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20021219221936/http:/216.247.220.66/archives/politics/watchwar.htm|accessdaymonth=6 November |accessyear=2007}}</ref>

El Salvador became the fourth largest recipient of U.S. aid, behind Israel, Egypt, and Turkey.<ref>Bonner, Raymond, Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador.</ref> In a joint 1982 report on human rights in El Salvador, The Americas Watch Committee and the ACLU place emphasis on U.S. military aid and training because it was "being provided to the same units alleged to be engaged in violations of human rights."<ref>Americas Watch Committee and American Civil Liberties Union, Report on Human Rights in El Salvador, January 26, 1982, p.179</ref> [[Human Rights First|The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights]] argued that because of the extensive provision of “funding, military equipment, training and military guidance” to the Salvadoran armed forces, as well as the fact that the U.S. “identified itself unreservedly” with the causes and conduct of the Salvador military, the U.S. “bears a heavy burden of responsibility”, and moreover argued that “there may be no place else where the United States is so directly responsible for the acts of a foreign government.”<ref>The Reagan Administration's Record on Human Rights in 1985, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, The Watch Committees (Americas Watch, Asia Watch, Helsinki Watch), January 1986, p. 53)</ref>

Allegations also point to the role that U.S. administrators played in both protecting the responsible military leaders from legal accountability, and the Salvadoran regime from criticism, while simultaneously maintaining the flow of over one billion dollars of military aid. According to the UN Truth Commission report, over 75% of the serious acts of violence reported took place during the Reagan administration’s time in office.<ref> Doggan, Martha, Death Foretold: The Jesuit Murders in El Salvador, 170</ref> Cynthia Arnson argues that when the killing was at its height, “the Reagan administration downplayed the scale of abuse as well as the involvement of state actors.”<ref>Arnson, Cynthia J. Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador in “Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability”, Campbell and Brenner, eds, 88</ref> When Congress passed a law, unpopular with the Reagan administration, which placed conditions of assurances of human rights compliance and progress on agrarian reforms, the administration issued certification reports every six months that drew heavy criticism, particularly from human rights groups. The first certification report was submitted on January 28, 1982. On the eve of the reports The Washington Post and New York Times published feature articles by American investigative journalists describing massacres in early December of 1981 in and around the village of [[El Mozote]]. The massacres had been mainly perpetrated by the Atlacatl Battalion, the first "rapid response unit" to be trained in the U.S. The certification report was only six pages long. William Leogrande remarked that the report “contained little evidence to support the declaratory judgments that progress had been made in all of the areas required by law. The report refused to acknowledge any government complicity in human rights violations...Moreover the report flatly denied that the paramilitary death squads were linked to the government.”<ref>Leogrande, William M. Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992, University of North Carolina Press</ref> Leogrande further stated that "no independent human rights group agreed with the Reagan administration’s portrait of the situation."<ref> Leogrande, William M. Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992, University of North Carolina Press</ref> The Americas Watch Committee and American Civil Liberties Union jointly referred to the report as a "fraud."<ref> America Watch Committee and American Civil Liberties Union, Report on Human Rights in El Salvador, February 26,1982</ref> Subsequent reports by U.S. agencies on the human rights situation were met with similar incredulity and contempt. A review of the Department of State's 1983 report on human rights in El Salvador by Americas Watch, Helsinki Watch and the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights concluded "all in all, this is a dreadful report."<ref>Americas Watch, Helsinki Watch, Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights, Review of the Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1983, March 1984</ref>The Reagan Administration's actions included vociferous denunciations of their critics. In a retrospective report entitled El Salvador's Decade of Terror: Human Rights Since the Assassination of Archbishop Romero, Human Rights Watch summarized the administration's behavior thusly, "during the Reagan years in particular, not only did the United States fail to press for improvements...but in an effort to maintain backing for U.S. policy, it misrepresented the record of the Salvadoran government and smeared critics who challenged that record. In so doing, the administration needlessly polarized the debate in the United States and did a grave injustice to the thousands of civilian victims of government terror in El Salvador."<ref>Americas Watch, El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991, p. 119</ref>

The extensive role of military advisers in El Salvador has also been raised as suggestive of wider systemic abuses of ethical and legal norms. According to William Leogrande’s analysis “a great deal of the Reagan administration’s policy toward Salvador was considered on what former Senator Sam Irvin called ‘the windy side of the law’. The president used his emergency powers, even when there was no emergency, to send $80 million in military aid to El Salvador without congressional review.” The Reagan administration carried out circumventions and arbitrary re-definitions of laws stipulating the quantity and role of advisers <ref>Leogrande, William M. Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992, University of North Carolina Press,281</ref>.

US officials say that President Bush senior's policies set the stage for peace, turning El Salvador into a democratic success story.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1891145.stm] There was substantial developmental aid during the Carter administration but very little military. The Reagan administration pressed for free elections. The Salvadoran right reluctantly joined this process after it became clear that the administration did not favor a conservative military coup.<ref>Library of Congress. Country Studies. El Salvador. Chapter 1 - Historical Setting [http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/svtoc.html]</ref>

Defenders also justify military aid by claiming it was necessary for defending U.S. National Security Interests. The FMLN guerrillas military efforts, including terrorist acts committed by them, seriously threatened the Salvadoran government. This was deemed a threat to "national security." As president Reagan argued in his historic national television address in 1984, ''"San Salvador is closer to Houston, Texas than Houston is to Washington, D.C. Central America is America; it's at our doorstep. And it has become a stage for a bold attempt by the Soviet Union, Cuba and Nicaragua to install communism by force throughout the hemisphere,"''<ref>Regan Ronald, televised address to the nation, May 9, 1984 from El Salvador:Central America in the New Cold War, Gettleman, Lacefield, Menashe and Mermelstein, eds, Grove Press, New York</ref>. The U.S. State Department provided detailed evidence for the links between the FMLN, Nicaragua, Cuba and the Soviet Union in its White Paper,"The Communist Interference in El Salvador." The document argues that the U.S. chose the most viable middle path between the right and left extremes undermining the country. The U.S. supported the Duarte government which worked with "some success to deal with the serious political and economic problem that most concern the people of El Salvador."<ref>The U.S. State Department, White Paper: Communist Interference in El Salvador from El Salvador: Central America in the New Cold War, Gettleman, Lacefield, Menashe, Mermelstein, eds, Grove Press New York, p.323 </ref>

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}

[[Category:Central American Countries]]
[[Category:Mayan world]]

Guatemala

2008-04-17T23:12:02Z

Giovanni33: why revert?

{{Country
|name =''República de Guatemala''
|map =Guatemala rel00.jpg
|flag =Flag of Guatemala.png
|arms =Arms of Guatemala.png
|capital =Guatemala City
|capital-raw =
|government =Presidential republic
|government-raw =
|language =Spanish
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Álvaro Colom
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =42,042 sq mi
|pop =12,728,111 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$62.78 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$4,155 (2006)
|currency =Quetzal
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Guatemala''' is a [[country]] in [[Central America]]. The Capital of Guatemala is Guatemala City (Ciudad de Guatemala). The current president is Álvaro Colom.

==People==
More than half of Guatemalans are descendants of indigenous [[Maya|Mayan]] peoples. Westernized Mayans and mestizos (mixed European and indigenous ancestry) are known as Ladinos. Most of Guatemala's population is rural, though urbanization is accelerating. The predominant religion is [[Roman Catholicism]], into which many indigenous Guatemalans have incorporated traditional forms of worship. Protestantism and traditional Mayan religions are practiced by an estimated 40% and 1% of the population, respectively. Though the official language is Spanish, it is not universally understood among the indigenous population. The peace accords signed in December 1996 provide for the translation of some official documents and voting materials into several indigenous languages.
*Population (2006 est.): 12.3 million.
*Annual population growth rate (2006 est.): 2.27%.
*Ethnic groups: Mestizo (mixed Spanish-Indian), indigenous.
*Religions: Roman Catholic, Protestant, traditional Mayan.
*Languages: Spanish, 24 indigenous languages (principally Kiche, Kaqchikel, Q'eqchi, and Mam).
*Education: Years compulsory--6. Attendance--41%. Literacy--70.6%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--36.9/1,000. Life expectancy--65.19 yrs.
*Work force salaried breakdown: Services--40%; industry and commerce--37%; agriculture--15%; construction, mining, utilities--4%. Fifty percent of the population engages in some form of agriculture, often at the subsistence level outside the monetized economy.

==Government==
Guatemala's 1985 constitution provides for a separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. The 1993 constitutional reforms included an increase in the number of Supreme Court justices from 9 to 13. The reforms reduced the terms of office for president, vice president, and congressional representatives from 5 years to 4 years, and for Supreme Court justices from 6 years to 5 years; they increased the terms of mayors and city councils from 2-1/2 years to 4 years.

The president and vice president are directly elected through universal suffrage and limited to one term. A vice president can run for president after 4 years out of office. Supreme Court justices are elected by the Congress from a list submitted by the bar association, law school deans, a university rector, and appellate judges. The Supreme Court and local courts handle civil and criminal cases. There also is a separate Constitutional Court.

Guatemala has 22 administrative subdivisions (departments) administered by governors appointed by the president. Guatemala City and 331 other municipalities are governed by popularly elected mayors or councils.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Álvaro Colom
*Vice President--Rafael Espada
*Minister of Foreign Affairs--Gert ROSENTHAL
*Minister of Government--Adela de Torrebiarte
*Ambassador to the U.S.--Jose Guillermo CASTILLO
*Ambassador to the UN--Jorge SKINNER-KLEE
*Ambassador to the OAS--Francisco VILLAGRÁN de León

===Political Conditions===
Common and violent crime, aggravated by a legacy of violence and vigilante justice, presents a serious challenge. Impunity remained a major problem, primarily because democratic institutions, including those responsible for the administration of justice, have developed only a limited capacity to cope with this legacy. Guatemala's judiciary is independent; however, it suffers from inefficiency, corruption, and intimidation.

In early December 2006, the government and the UN agreed to the creation of the joint International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). On August 1, 2007, the Guatemalan Congress approved the agreement. An earlier Guatemala-UN agreement was ruled unconstitutional in 2004 before it was acted upon by the Guatemalan Congress. The UN Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA) ceased its 10-year project of monitoring peace accord implementation and human rights problems in November 2004 with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declaring Guatemala had made "enormous progress in managing the country's problems through dialogue and institutions".

===Foreign Relations===
Guatemala's major diplomatic interests are regional security and, increasingly, regional development and economic integration. Guatemala participates in several regional groups, particularly those related to trade and the environment.

The Council of Central American Ministers of Trade meets on a regular basis to work on regional approaches to trade issues. The council signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with the U.S. in 1998, and was part of the negotiations that led to the creation of CAFTA. Guatemala joined Honduras and El Salvador in signing a free trade agreement with Mexico in 2000, which went into effect the following year. Guatemala also originated the idea for, and is the seat of, the Central American Parliament (PARLACEN).

The U.S and Central American countries signed the CONCAUSA (Conjunto Centroamerica-USA) agreement at the Summit of the Americas in December 1994. CONCAUSA is a cooperative plan of action to promote clean, efficient energy use; conserve the region's biodiversity; strengthen legal and institutional frameworks and compliance mechanisms; and improve and harmonize environmental protection standards.

Guatemala has a long-standing claim to a large portion of Belize; the territorial dispute caused problems with the United Kingdom and later with Belize following its 1981 independence from the U.K. In December 1989, Guatemala sponsored Belize for permanent observer status in the Organization of American States (OAS). In September 1991, Guatemala recognized Belize's independence and established diplomatic ties, while acknowledging that the boundaries remained in dispute. In anticipation of an effort to bring the border dispute to an end in early 1996, the Guatemalan Congress ratified two long-pending international agreements governing frontier issues and maritime rights. In 2001, Guatemala and Belize agreed to a facilitation process led by the OAS to determine the land and maritime borders separating the two countries. National elections in Guatemala put a temporary halt to progress, but discussions resumed in November 2005. Since being named Foreign Minister in early August 2006, Gert Rosenthal has reinvigorated discussions with Belize.

==Defense==
Guatemala is a signatory to the Rio Pact and is a member of the Conference of Central American Armed Forces (CFAC). Guatemala has deployed its troops to UN peacekeeping operations in Haiti and the Congo and has observers in several other locations. The president is commander in chief. The defense minister is responsible for policy. Day-to-day operations are the responsibility of the military chief of staff and the national defense staff.

An agreement signed in September 1996, which is one of the substantive peace accords, mandated that the mission of the armed forces change to focus exclusively on external threats. However, President Berger as well as his predecessors Portillo and Arzu used a constitutional clause to order the army to temporarily support the police in response to a nationwide wave of violent crime.

The accord calls for a one-third reduction in the army's authorized strength and budget--achieved under President Berger--and for a constitutional amendment to permit the appointment of a civilian Minister of Defense. A constitutional amendment to this end was defeated as part of a May 1999 plebiscite, but discussions on how to achieve this objective continue between the executive and legislative branches.

The army has gone beyond its accord-mandated target of reducing its strength to 28,000 troops, and numbered 15,500 troops as of June 2004. Not only was this the most profound transformation of any Central American military in the last 50 years, it also illustrates the effective control the civilian government has over the military. President Berger has tasked the Defense Ministry with increasing the professional skills of all soldiers. As part of the army downsizing, the operational structure of 19 military zones and three strategic brigades were recast as several military zones are eliminated and their area of operations absorbed by others. The air force operates three air bases; the navy has two port bases. Additionally, recent steps have been taken to redefine the military's mission--the military doctrine has been rewritten, and there has been an increase in cooperation with civil society to help bring about this reform.

==Economy==
After the signing of the final peace accord in December 1996, Guatemala was well-positioned for rapid economic growth over the next several years, until a financial crisis in 1998 disrupted the course of improvement. The subsequent collapse of coffee prices left what was once the country's leading export sector in depression and had a severe impact on rural incomes. Foreign investment inflows have been weak, with the exception of the privatization of utilities. Potential investors, both foreign and domestic, cite corruption, lack of physical security, a climate of confrontation between the government and private sector, and unreliable mechanisms for contract enforcement as the principal barriers to new business. On a more positive note, Guatemala's macroeconomic management was sound under the Portillo administration, and its foreign debt levels are modest. The country subscribed to a standby agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2002, which it extended in June 2003.

Guatemala's economy is dominated by the private sector, which generates about 85% of GDP. Agriculture contributes 23% of GDP and accounts for 75% of exports. Most manufacturing is light assembly and food processing, geared to the domestic, U.S., and Central American markets. Over the past several years, tourism and exports of textiles, apparel, and nontraditional agricultural products such as winter vegetables, fruit, and cut flowers have boomed, while more traditional exports such as sugar, bananas, and coffee continue to represent a large share of the export market.
*Real GDP (2006): $22.83 billion.
*Real GDP growth (2006): 4.6%.
*Per capita GDP (PPP, 2006): $4,317.
*Natural resources: Oil, timber, nickel.
*Agriculture (23% of GDP): Products--coffee, sugar, bananas, cardamom, vegetables, flowers and plants, timber, rice, rubber.
*Manufacturing (18% of GDP): Types--prepared food, clothing and textiles, construction materials, tires, pharmaceuticals.
*Trade (2005 est.): Exports--$3.94 billion: coffee, bananas, sugar, crude oil, chemical products, clothing and textiles, vegetables. Major markets--U.S. 28.9%, Central American Common Market (CACM) 42.4%, Mexico 4.8%. Imports--$7.75 billion: machinery and equipment, fuels, mineral products, chemical products, vehicles and transport materials, plastic materials and products. Major suppliers--U.S. 39.6%, CACM 12.3%, Mexico 8.3%, Japan 3.8%, Germany 2.4%.

The United States is the country's largest trading partner, providing 39.6% of Guatemala's imports and receiving 28.9% of its exports. The government's involvement is small, with its business activities limited to public utilities--some of which have been privatized--ports and airports, and several development-oriented financial institutions.

Guatemala ratified the U.S.-Central America Free Trade Agreement, commonly known as CAFTA, on March 10, 2005 and the agreement entered into force between Guatemala and the U.S. on July 1, 2006. CAFTA eliminates customs tariffs on as many categories of goods as possible; opens services sectors; and creates clear and readily enforceable rules in areas such as investment, government procurement, intellectual property protection, customs procedures, electronic commerce, the use of sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures to protect public health, and resolution of business disputes.

Other priorities include increasing transparency and accountability in Guatemala's public finances, broadening the tax base, and completing implementation of financial sector reforms. These measures attempt to ensure that Guatemala can comply with the standards of the international Financial Action Task Force for detecting and preventing money laundering.

The United States, along with other donor countries--especially France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Japan--and the international financial institutions, have increased development project financing since the signing of the peace accords. However, donor support remains contingent upon Guatemalan Government reforms and counterpart financing.

The distribution of income and wealth remains highly skewed. The wealthiest 10% of the population receives almost one-half of all income; the top 20% receives two-thirds of all income. As a result, about 80% of the population lives in poverty, and two-thirds of that number--or 7.6 million people--live in extreme poverty. Guatemala's social development indicators, such as infant mortality and illiteracy, are among the worst in the hemisphere. Chronic malnutrition among the rural poor worsened with the onset of the crisis in coffee prices. The United States has provided disaster assistance and food aid in response to natural disasters including Hurricane Stan, which caused extensive mudslides in Guatemala in October 2005.

==History==
The Mayan civilization flourished throughout much of Guatemala and the surrounding region long before the Spanish arrived, but it was already in decline when the Mayans were defeated by Pedro de Alvarado in 1523-24. The first colonial capital, Ciudad Vieja, was ruined by floods and an earthquake in 1542. Survivors founded Antigua, the second capital, in 1543. Antigua was destroyed by two earthquakes in 1773. The remnants of its Spanish colonial architecture have been preserved as a national monument. The third capital, Guatemala City, was founded in 1776.

Guatemala gained independence from Spain on September 15, 1821; it briefly became part of the Mexican Empire, and then for a period belonged to a federation called the United Provinces of Central America. From the mid-19th century until the mid-1980s, the country passed through a series of dictatorships, insurgencies (particularly beginning in the 1960s), coups, and stretches of military rule with only occasional periods of representative government.

====1944 to 1986====
In 1944, Gen. Jorge Ubico's dictatorship was overthrown by the "October Revolutionaries," a group of dissident military officers, students, and liberal professionals. A civilian President, Juan Jose Arevalo, was elected in 1945 and held the presidency until 1951. Social reforms initiated by Arevalo were continued by his successor, Col. Jacobo Arbenz. Arbenz permitted the communist Guatemalan Labor Party to gain legal status in 1952. The army refused to defend the Arbenz government when a U.S.-backed group led by Col. Carlos Castillo Armas invaded the country from Honduras in 1954 and quickly took over the government. Gen. Miguel Ydigoras Fuentes took power in 1958 following the murder of Colonel Castillo Armas.

In response to the increasingly autocratic rule of Ydigoras Fuentes, a group of junior military officers revolted in 1960. When they failed, several went into hiding and established close ties with Cuba. This group became the nucleus of the forces that were in armed insurrection against the government for the next 36 years. Four principal left-wing guerrilla groups--the Guerrilla Army of the Poor (EGP), the Revolutionary Organization of Armed People (ORPA), the Rebel Armed Forces (FAR), and the Guatemalan Labor Party (PGT)--conducted economic sabotage and targeted government installations and members of government security forces in armed attacks. These organizations combined to form the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG) in 1982.

Shortly after President Julio Cesar Mendez Montenegro took office in 1966, the army launched a major counterinsurgency campaign that largely broke up the guerrilla movement in the countryside. The guerrillas then concentrated their attacks in Guatemala City, where they assassinated many leading figures, including U.S. Ambassador John Gordon Mein in 1968. Between 1966 and 1982, there was a series of military or military-dominated governments.

On March 23, 1982, army troops commanded by junior officers staged a coup to prevent the assumption of power by Gen. Angel Anibal Guevara, the hand-picked candidate of outgoing President and Gen. Romeo Lucas Garcia. They denounced Guevara's electoral victory as fraudulent. The coup leaders asked retired Gen. Efrain Rios Montt to negotiate the departure of Lucas and Guevara.

Rios Montt was at this time a lay pastor in the evangelical protestant "Church of the Word." He formed a three-member military junta that annulled the 1965 constitution, dissolved Congress, suspended political parties, and canceled the electoral law. After a few months, Rios Montt dismissed his junta colleagues and assumed the de facto title of "President of the Republic."

Guerrilla forces and their leftist allies denounced Rios Montt. Rios Montt sought to defeat the guerrillas with military actions and economic reforms; in his words, "rifles and beans." The government began to form local civilian defense patrols (PACs). Participation was in theory voluntary, but in reality, many Guatemalans, especially in the heavily indigenous northwest, had no choice but to join either the PACs or the guerrillas. Rios Montt's conscript army and PACs recaptured essentially all guerrilla territory--guerrilla activity lessened and was largely limited to hit-and-run operations. However, Rios Montt won this partial victory at an enormous cost in civilian deaths, in what was probably the most violent period of the 36-year internal conflict, resulting in about 200,000 deaths of mostly unarmed indigenous civilians.

On August 8, 1983, Rios Montt was deposed by his own Minister of Defense, Gen. Oscar Humberto Mejia Victores, who succeeded him as de facto President of Guatemala. Rios Montt survived to found a political party (the Guatemalan Republic Front) and to be elected President of Congress in 1995 and 2000. Awareness in the United States of the conflict in Guatemala, and its ethnic dimension, increased with the 1983 publication of the book I, Rigoberta Menchu, An Indian Woman in Guatemala.

General Mejia allowed a managed return to democracy in Guatemala, starting with a July 1, 1984 election for a Constituent Assembly to draft a democratic constitution. On May 30, 1985, after 9 months of debate, the Constituent Assembly finished drafting a new constitution, which took effect immediately. Vinicio Cerezo, a civilian politician and the presidential candidate of the Christian Democracy Party, won the first election held under the new constitution with almost 70% of the vote, and took office on January 14, 1986.

====1986 to 2003====
Upon its inauguration in January 1986, President Cerezo's civilian government announced that its top priorities would be to end the political violence and establish the rule of law. Reforms included new laws of habeas corpus and amparo (court-ordered protection), the creation of a legislative human rights committee, and the establishment in 1987 of the Office of Human Rights Ombudsman. Cerezo survived coup attempts in 1988 and 1989, and the final 2 years of Cerezo's government were also marked by a failing economy, strikes, protest marches, and allegations of widespread corruption.

Presidential and congressional elections were held on November 11, 1990. After a runoff ballot, Jorge Serrano was inaugurated on January 14, 1991, thus completing the first transition from one democratically elected civilian government to another.

The Serrano administration's record was mixed. It had some success in consolidating civilian control over the army, replacing a number of senior officers and persuading the military to participate in peace talks with the URNG. Serrano took the politically unpopular step of recognizing the sovereignty of Belize. The Serrano government reversed the economic slide it inherited, reducing inflation and boosting real growth.

On May 25, 1993, Serrano illegally dissolved Congress and the Supreme Court and tried to restrict civil freedoms, allegedly to fight corruption. The "autogolpe" (or self-initiated coup) failed due to unified, strong protests by most elements of Guatemalan society, international pressure, and the army's enforcement of the decisions of the Court of Constitutionality, which ruled against the attempted takeover. Serrano fled the country.

On June 5, 1993, the Congress, pursuant to the 1985 constitution, elected the Human Rights Ombudsman, Ramiro De Leon Carpio, to complete Serrano's presidential term. De Leon, not a member of any political party and lacking a political base but with strong popular support, launched an ambitious anticorruption campaign to "purify" Congress and the Supreme Court, demanding the resignations of all members of the two bodies.

Despite considerable congressional resistance, presidential and popular pressure led to a November 1993 agreement brokered by the Catholic Church between the administration and Congress. This package of constitutional reforms was approved by popular referendum on January 30, 1994. In August 1994, a new Congress was elected to complete the unexpired term.

Under De Leon, the peace process, now brokered by the United Nations, took on new life. The government and the URNG signed agreements on human rights (March 1994), resettlement of displaced persons (June 1994), historical clarification (June 1994), and indigenous rights (March 1995). They also made significant progress on a socioeconomic and agrarian agreement. National elections for president, the Congress, and municipal offices were held in November 1995. With almost 20 parties competing in the first round, the presidential election came down to a January 7, 1996 runoff in which National Advancement Party (PAN) candidate Alvaro Arzu defeated Alfonso Portillo of the Guatemalan Republican Front (FRG) by just over 2% of the vote. Under the Arzu administration, peace negotiations were concluded, and the government signed peace accords ending the 36-year internal conflict in December 1996. The human rights situation also improved during Arzu's tenure, and steps were taken to reduce the influence of the military in national affairs.

In a December 1999 presidential runoff, Alfonso Portillo (FRG) won 68% of the vote to 32% for Oscar Berger (PAN). Portillo's impressive electoral triumph, with two-thirds of the vote in the second round, gave him a claim to a mandate from the people to carry out his reform program.

Progress in carrying out Portillo's reform agenda was slow at best, with the notable exception of a series of reforms sponsored by the World Bank to modernize bank regulation and criminalize money laundering. The United States determined in April 2003 that Guatemala had failed to demonstrably adhere to its international counternarcotics commitments during the previous year.

A high crime rate and a serious and worsening public corruption problem were cause for concern for the Government of Guatemala. These problems, in addition to issues related to the often violent harassment and intimidation by unknown assailants of human rights activists, judicial workers, journalists, and witnesses in human rights trials, led the government to begin serious attempts in 2001 to open a national dialogue to discuss the considerable challenges facing the country.

National elections were held on November 9, 2003. Oscar Berger Perdomo of the Grand National Alliance (GANA) party won the election, receiving 54.1% of the vote. His opponent, Alvarado Colom Caballeros of the Nation Unity for Hope (UNE) party received 45.9% of the vote. The new government assumed office on January 14, 2004.

==Civil War and US involvement==

The Guatemala Civil War was predominantly fought between the government of Guatemala and insurgents between 1960 and 1996.

In 1999, an independent Guatemalan Truth Commission (the "[[Historical Clarification Commission]]") issued a report which, according to Robert Parry writing in Consortiumnews.com, among other things, stated that the "government of the United States, through various agencies including the CIA, provided direct and indirect support for some of these state operations." Parry also writes that the report {{quote|...estimate[s] that the Guatemalan conflict claimed the lives of some 200,000 people with the most savage bloodletting occurring in the 1980s. Based on a review of about 20% of the dead, the panel blamed the army for 93% of the killings and leftist guerrillas for three percent. Four percent were listed as unresolved....the army committed 626 massacres against Mayan villages... [which] "eliminated entire Mayan villages... completely exterminat[ing] Mayan communities, destroy[ing] their livestock and crops."|Robert Parry|Consortiumnews.com<ref name=Guat_Perry>
{{cite web
| title =History of Guatemala's 'Death Squads'
| url =http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/011005.html
| accessdate=2007-06-23
| author =Robert Parry
}}</ref>}}

The report went on to term the Guatemalan military's campaign in the northern highlands a "genocide," and that besides "carrying out murder and "disappearances," the army routinely engaged in torture and rape. "The rape of women, during torture or before being murdered, was a common practice" by the military and paramilitary forces, the report found."

In 1984 Human Rights Watch reported on Guatemala, stating: “Previous America’s Watch reports on Guatemala have discussed the murder of thousands by a military government that maintains its authority by terror. The killing continues as we document in this, our third report on Guatemala.”
<blockquote>
“As best as we can determine the rural massacres are smaller in scope, which partly reflects the fact that so many of Guatemala’s villages had already been decimated during the army’s terror tactics in the counterinsurgency campaign that it waged in 1982 and the early part of 1983. On the other hand the number of rural killings remains very high, and the number of killings in the cities has risen sharply, coming to resemble the situation that prevailed under President Lucas Garcia (1978-1982)” (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p. 2-3)
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“The government of Guatemala continues to engage in the systematic use of torture as a means of gathering intelligence and coercing confessions. There is also evidence that torture is used for exemplary purposes, to instill fear among those who see themselves as potential victims of arrest or abduction. … We do find that between the Rios Montt and Meija administrations there has been no appreciable difference where the use of torture is concerned. “ (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p11.)
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“In such places, the army faces a crucial dilemma: the resources are not now available to permanently garrison each village. Yet, should they be totally neglected, they could become an important stronghold for opposing the regime. In such situations, the army exercises several options designed to place the community under military control and hold back the development of any opposition. One frequent approach is terror: the burning of houses, beatings, torture, selective killings and even massacres. Distant communities visited in northwest Quiche, near the Huehuetenango border, have experienced some form of military terror…Not one community is what it used to be; a forced transformation has befallen each one. The terror does not simply stem from the cruelty of the armed forces or from the policies of a specific government- although both factors are obviously involved- but from the systematic application of force to maintain effective military control in remote areas of the country-side…the terror is sufficient to ensure that the population understands that no level of dissent, let alone rebellion, will be tolerated. When a village is burned and its people abused, the message is that this is punishment for real or imagined cooperation with the opposition.” (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p.60)</blockquote>

====US involvement====
Declassified CIA documents<ref name="NSAArchive-Guatemala">
{{cite web|url=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/index.html|title=CIA and Assassinations: The Guatemala 1954 Documents |publisher=George Washington University NSA Archive (Republished)}}</ref> show that the United States was instrumental in organizing, funding, and equipping the [[1954 Guatemalan coup d'état|coup]] which toppled the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954. Analysts Kate Doyle and Peter Kornbluh argue that "After a small insurgency developed in the wake of the coup, Guatemala's military leaders developed and refined, with U.S. assistance, a massive counterinsurgency campaign that left tens of thousands massacred, maimed or missing." Professor of History, Stephen G. Rabe, writes in "In destroying the popularly elected government of [[Jacobo Arbenz Guzman]] (1950-1954), the United States initiated a nearly four-decade-long cycle of terror and repression that led to the death of 200,000 Guatemalans." <ref>{{cite book|title=Managing the Counterrevolution: The United States and Guatemala, 1954-1961 (review) |publisher=The Americas |page=Volume 59, Number 4 |date=April 2003 |pages=601-603 |author=Stephen G. Rabe}}</ref>

After the U.S.-backed coup, which toppled president [[Jacobo Arbenz]], lead coup plotter [[Castillo Armas]] assumed power. Author and university professor, Patrice McSherry argues that with Armas at the head of government, "the United States began to militarize Guatemala almost immediately, financing and reorganizing the police and military."<ref name=" EvolutionofNationalSecurityState "> J. Patrice McSherry. “The Evolution of the National Security State: The Case of Guatemala.” ''Socialism and Democracy''. Spring/Summer 1990, 133.</ref>

Human rights expert Michael McClintock<ref>{{cite web| title = About Michael McClintock | publisher = Human Rights First | url = http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/about_us/staff/mcclintock_m.htm | accessdate = 2007-07-03}}</ref> has argued that the national security apparatus Armas presided over was “almost entirely oriented toward countering subversion,” and that the key component of that apparatus was “an intelligence system set up by the United States.”<ref name="AmericanConnection"> Michael McClintock. ''The American Connection Volume 2: State Terror and Popular Resistance in Guatemala''. London: Zed Books Ltd., 1985, pp. 2, 32. </ref> At the core of this intelligence system were records of communist party members, pro-Arbenz organizations, teacher associations, and peasant unions which were used to create a detailed “Black List” with names and information about some 70,000 individuals that were viewed as potential subversives. It was “CIA counter-intelligence officers who sorted the records and determined how they could be put to use.”<ref>McClintock 32-33.</ref> McClintock argues that this list persisted as an index of subversives for several decades and probably served as a database of possible targets for the counter-insurgency campaign that began in the early 1960s.<ref>McClintock 33.</ref>

Patrice McSherry argues that after a successful (U.S. backed) coup against president [[Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes]] in 1963, U.S. advisors began to work with Colonel [[Carlos Manuel Arana Osorio]] to defeat the guerrillas, borrowing “extensively from current counterinsurgency strategies and technology being employed in Vietnam.” Between the years of 1966-68 alone some 8,000 peasants were murdered by the U.S. trained forces of Colonel Arana Osorio.<ref> McSherry 134.</ref> Sociologist Jeffrey M. Paige writes that Arana Osorio "earned the nickname "The Butcher of Zacapa" for killing 15,000 peasants to eliminate 300 suspected rebels." <ref>Jeffery M. Paige, Social Theory and Peasant Revolution in Vietnam and Guatemala, Theory and Society, Vol. 12, No. 6 (Nov., 1983), pp. 699-737 </ref>

McClintock argues that “counter-insurgency doctrine, as imparted by the United States civil and military assistance agencies, had a tremendous influence on Guatemala’s security system and a devastating impact on Guatemala’s people.”<ref>McClintock 75.</ref> He writes:

{{quote|United States counter-insurgency doctrine encouraged the Guatemalan military to adopt both new organizational forms and new techniques in order to root out insurgency more effectively. New techniques would revolve around a central precept of the new counter-insurgency: that counter insurgent war must be waged free of restriction by laws, by the rules of war, or moral considerations: guerrilla “terror” could be defeated only by the untrammeled use of “counter-terror”, the terrorism of the state.|Michael McClintock<ref>McClintock 54.</ref>}}

McClintock writes that this idea was also articulated by Colonel John Webber, the chief of the U.S. Military Mission in Guatemala, who instigated the technique of “counter-terror.” Colonel Webber defended his policy by saying, “That’s the way this country is. The Communists are using everything they have, including terror. And it must be met.”<ref>McClintock 61.</ref>

According to the Center for International Policy, "The CIA established a liaison relationship with Guatemalan security services widely known to have reprehensible human rights records, and it continued covert aid after the cutoff of overt military aid in 1990. This liaison relationship and continued covert aid occurred with the knowledge of the National Security Council, the State Department, and the Congressional oversight committees. Contrary to public allegations, CIA did not increase covert funding for Guatemala to compensate for the cut-off of military aid in 1990."<ref name="guat">[http://www.ciponline.org/iob.htm Report on the Guatemala Review] Intelligence Oversight Board. [[June 28]], [[1996]]. In 1995 CIA aid was stopped. </ref> [[Robert E. White]], a former ambassador to El Salvador and Paraguay, and president of the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C. writes, that the human rights report makes "grim reading", and that:

{{quote|"the United States was not backing one side in a civil war but rather a campaign of official terror. Of the more than 200,000 victims, the commission found that the army and other state agents killed 93 percent. With direct orders from the government's highest echelons and the military high command, soldiers carried out a scorched-earth policy burning Mayan villages and throwing the still-living victims into common burial pits. Declassified documents reveal that Washington knew of these acts of genocide yet our government continued its assistance to the Guatemalan military."<ref>{{cite news|article=Rethinking Foreign Policy: Lessons from Latin America |publisher=Commonweal |date=June 4, 1999 |author=White, Robert E.}}</ref> |}}

He further states that {{quote|"the Guatemalan truth commission was right to single out the CIA for special mention. Between 1965 and 1981, I served in our embassies in Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. I watched as the CIA recruited dozens of paid informants from the right-wing fringes of Central American society. These ideologues regarded labor union leaders threatening a strike or student activists protesting the closing of a newspaper as agents of subversion. I watched as CIA reports to Washington characterized as Communist or Communist sympathizers, brave men and women whose only crime was to work for the restoration of democratic government and against the U.S.- supported military dictator. Worst of all, I watched as the CIA shared its "intelligence" with the leaders of these military regimes. Not unnaturally these authorities regarded any person fingered in an official CIA report as a legitimate target for persecution, even death."[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-55707739.html]<ref>{{cite news|article=Rethinking Foreign Policy: Lessons from Latin America |publisher=Commonweal |date=June 4, 1999 |author=White, Robert E.}}</ref>|}}

Utilizing declassified government documents, researchers Kate Doyle and Carlos Osorio from the research institute the [[National Security Archive]] document that Guatemalan Colonel Byron Lima Estrada took military police and counterintelligence courses at the [[School of the Americas]]. He later served in several elite counterinsurgency units trained and equipped by the U.S. Military Assistance Program (MAP). He would eventually rise to command [[D-2]], the Guatemalan Military Intelligence services who were responsible for many of the terror tactics wielded throughout the 1980s.<ref name="NSAArchive-Guatemala03">
{{cite web|url=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB25/index.htm|title=Colonel Byron Disrael Lima Estrada |publisher=George Washington University NSA Archive (Republished)}}</ref>

In 1999, the Guatemalan Truth Commission (the "[[Historical Clarification Commission]]") issued a report which, among other things, stated that "The CEH recognises that the movement of Guatemala towards polarisation, militarization and civil war was not just the result of national history. The cold war also played an important role. Whilst anti-communism, promoted by the United States within the framework of its foreign policy, received firm support from right-wing political parties and from various other powerful actors in Guatemala, the United States demonstrated that it was willing to provide support for strong military regimes in its strategic backyard. In the case of Guatemala, military assistance was directed towards reinforcing the national intelligence apparatus and for training the officer corps in counterinsurgency techniques, key factors which had significant bearing on human rights violations during the armed confrontation."[http://shr.aaas.org/guatemala/ceh/report/english/conc1.html]

In their 1998 "Report On Guatemala" Rolando Alecio and Ruth Taylor condemn the "legacy of state terror" the nation has inherited from the U.S.-backed and -trained military.{{Nonspecific|date=March 2008}}

Minor Sinclair writes in the Sojourner that:
{{quote |Recent disclosures have revealed the extent of U.S. support for the Guatemalan army despite its reputation as the most repressive military in Latin America. For years Guatemala's elite military officers have been trained in the United States, and at any given time dozens are on the CIA payroll.<ref name=Guat_Sinclair>{{cite web |title =Sorrow Lifted to the Heavens
|url =http://www.sojo.net/
|accessdate=2007-06-23
|author =Minor Sinclair
}}</ref>}}

Writing for ''[[The Nation]]'', in 1995 [[Allan Nairn]] argued that "North American C.l. A. operatives [were] work[ing] inside a Guatemalan Army unit that maintain[ed] a network of torture centers and ha[d] killed thousands of Guatemalan civilians." Nairn stated that Gramajos was a CIA asset and receiving pay from them, and he linked Gramajos to the early 1980s highland massacres.<ref name="Nairn">{{cite news|title=C.I.A. Death Squads |publisher=The Nation |date=April 1995 |author=Allan Nairn}}</ref><ref name="Nairn2">{{cite news|title=The country team |publisher=The Nation |date=June 5, 2005 |author=Allan Nairn}}</ref><ref name="Arnove1">{{cite news|title=An Interview With Allan Nairn |publisher=Znet Magazine |date=June 2005 |author=Anthony Arnove}}</ref>

Gramajos allegedly said that "We aren't renouncing the use of force. If we have to use it, we have to use it, but in a more sophisticated manner. You needn't kill everyone to complete the job. [You can use] more sophisticated means; we aren't going to return to the large-scale massacres. We have created a more humanitarian, less costly strategy, to be more compatible with the democratic system. We instituted Civil Affairs [in 1982] which provides development for 70 percent of the people while we kill 30 percent. Before the strategy was to kill 100 percent."<ref>Jennifer Schirmer, "The Guatemalan military project: an interview with Gen. Hector Gramajo," Harvard International Review, Vol. 13, Issue 3 (Spring 1991).</ref>}} When the Harvard Crimson asked if these statements accurately represented his views, he retreated, suggesting that the transcript reflected a certain lack of linguistic dexterity, his characteristic use of "broken English." "I really did not mean exactly 'kill,'" but rather that soldiers cannot "renounce coercive action" and that the military is now "going to make a very clear distinction between [civilians and insurgents]." The article also stated:

{{cquote|During his tenure as Guatemalan minister of defense from 1987 to 1990, Gramajo oversaw a military accused of butchering dozens of university students, provoking Anne Manuel of Americas Watch to find "a sort of tragic irony" in Harvard's ardor for educating him. Gramajo is believed to have chosen to come to Harvard as part of his plan to run for Guatemala's presidency in 1995. And Harvard, as U.S. Representative [[Chester G. Atkins|Chester Atkins]] (D-MA) observed, appears to be in the business of "laundering reputations."<ref>[http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2007/3/25/23249/5204 The NarcoSphere || In Oaxaca, Harvard Comes to the Rescue]</ref>}}

From the 1984 Human Rights Watch report on Guatemala in a section entitled “The U.S. Role,":
<blockquote>
“On December 4, 1982, President Reagan met with Guatemalan President Rios Montt in Honduras and dismissed reports of human rights abuses in Guatemala published by Americas Watch, Amnesty International and others as a “bum wrap” The following month the Reagan administration announced that it was ending a “five-year embargo on arms sale to Guatemala and had approved a sale of $6.36 million worth of military spare parts to the country. This sale was approved despite U.S. law forbidding arms sales to governments engaged in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. “ (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984,p. 135)
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“During most of 1983, the Reagan Administration continued to dispute reports of human rights abuses in Guatemala. When Americas Watch published its May 1983 report on Guatemala, Creating a Desolation and Calling it Peace, Elliott Abrams, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, attempted to discredit it publicly. (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, 135)
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“In light of its long record of apologies for the government of Guatemala, and its failure to repudiate publicly those apologies even at a moment of disenchantment, we believe that the Reagan Administration shares in the responsibility for the gross abuses of human rights practiced by the government of Guatemala."<ref>Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984</ref>
</blockquote>

[[Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed]], Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development states: "In particular, the U.S. client regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala regularly massacred their own populations, slaughtering over 100,000 civilians during the 1980s and into the beginning of 1990s. Yet the U.S. continued to sponsor such terrorism, propping up the dictatorships responsible for such violence while actively helping them carry it out..."<ref name="Nafeez">{{cite book|title=A Critical Review Of The Objectives Of U.S. Foreign Policy In The Post-World War II Period |author=Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed |publisher=Media Monitors |date=September 24, 2001}}</ref>

A 1996 report on CIA's action in Guatemala by the ''Intelligence Oversight Board'' mentioned that the US helped stop a military coup in 1993, further stating that:
{{quote|"The CIA's successes in Guatemala in conjunction with other U.S. agencies, particularly in uncovering and working to counter coups and in reducing the narcotics flow, were at times dramatic and very much in the national interests of both the United States and Guatemala."}}

The report goes on to state:

{{cquote|"Relations between the U.S. and Guatemalan governments came under strain in 1977, when the Carter administration issued its first annual human rights report on Guatemala. The Guatemalan government rejected that report's negative assessment and refused U.S. military aid." "Relations between the two countries warmed in the mid-1980's with gradual improvements in human rights and the Reagan administration's emphasis on curbing the spread of communism in Central America. After a civilian government under President Cerezo was elected in 1985, overt non-lethal US military aid to Guatemala resumed. In December 1990, however, largely as a result of the killing of US citizen Michael DeVine by members of the Guatemalan army, the Bush administration suspended almost all overt military aid."

"The US worked with the De Leon government in attempting to strengthen democracy and human rights ... The US also joined the "Group of Friends of the Peace Process," which continues to work to bring an end to Guatemala's 35-year-old internal conflict ... There has been some improvement over time in the Guatemalan military's accountability with regard to human rights violations. Whereas in the 1980's the army acted with total impunity, in the 1990's military personnel were for the first time charged, convicted, and imprisoned for some of their crimes. Senior officers, however, are still rarely charged for their roles in ordering or covering up such crimes. Human rights problems, including cases involving US citizens, remain a serious concern in US-Guatemalan relations."

"US policy objectives in Guatemala since 1984 have included supporting the transition to and strengthening of civilian democratic government, encouraging respect for human rights and the rule of law, supporting economic growth, combating illegal narcotics trafficking, fighting the communist insurgency, and, in recent years, advancing the peace process."}}

The report also goes on to highlight:

{{cquote|"The human rights records of the Guatemalan security services — the D-2 and the Department of Presidential Security (known informally as "Archivos," after one of its predecessor organizations) — were generally known to have been reprehensible by all who were familiar with Guatemala. U.S. policy-makers knew of both the CIA's liaison with them and the services' unsavory reputations. The CIA endeavored to improve the behavior of the Guatemalan services through frequent and close contact and by stressing the importance of human rights — insisting, for example, that Guatemalan military intelligence training include human rights instruction. The station officers assigned to Guatemala and the CIA headquarters officials whom we interviewed believe that the CIA's contact with the Guatemalan services helped improve attitudes towards human rights. Several indices of human rights observance indeed reflected improvement — whether or not this was due to CIA efforts — but egregious violations continued, and some of the station's closest contacts in the security services remained a part of the problem.<ref>[http://www.ciponline.org/iob.htm Report on the Guatemala Review] Intelligence Oversight Board. June 28, 1996.</ref>}}

====Sister Dianna Ortiz ====
{{main|Dianna Ortiz}}
Sister Dianna Ortiz is a [[U.S]] citizen and [[Roman Catholicism|Roman Catholic]] [[nun]] who was serving as a [[missionary]] in [[Guatemala]] in [[1989]] when she was abducted and brutally tortured. Among other torments she was [[gang-rape]]d and suffered over 100 [[cigarette burn]]s.

In early 1995 Sister Ortiz won a U.S. civil court case against the former Minister of Defense of Guatemala and graduate of the [[School of the Americas]]— General [[Héctor Gramajo]].[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEEDE143EF930A25757C0A963958260]<ref name="ratner">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wnet/justice/law_background_torture.html|title=Civil Remedies for Gross Human Rights Violations|last=Ratner|first=Michael|accessdate=2007-07-09}}</ref> In its ruling, the judiciary stated that "[Gramajo-Morales]...was aware of and supported widespread acts of brutality committed under his command resulting in thousands of civilian deaths...." <ref name = "Cambridge-0521580668">[http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521580668 International Law Reports - Cambridge University Press]</ref> and further stated that Gramajo-Morales “devised...[and] directed...[an] indiscriminate campaign of terror against civilians.”<ref name = "Cambridge-0521580668"/>

Sister Ortiz suspects some involvement by US government personnel. According to Allan Narien's article "Murder as Policy" published in the The Nation, Vol. 260, April 24, 1995, the former United States Ambassador to Guatemala, Thomas F. Stroock (1989-1992), claims that Sister Ortiz's various claims amount to an allegation of U.S. involvement in her rape and torture by right wing para military forces. In the "The Struggle against Impunity in Guatemala," published by the Journal of Social Justice, Vol. 26, 1999, by Raul Molina Mejia, author describes, the sister Oriz incident as an example of State Terrorism. He writes: "impunity as concrete legal or de facto actions taken by powerful sectors to prevent investigation or prosecution, such as amnesty laws, pardons, thwarting investigations, the hiding of documents, and tampering with legal samples were abundant in Guatemala. He also mentions the cases of Michael Devine, the El Aguacate massacre, the 1990 surge of killings at the National University of San Carlos, as well as the detention and torture of Sister Dianna Ortiz. The author explains the "political/psychological" aspect of this impunity, is "a dimension resulting from state terrorism, by which political options in a polity are restricted and controlled through the state's manipulation of fear."

Professor Farmer argues significant US involvement with state terrorism, and cites this particular case of [[Hector Gramajo]], claiming that U. S. complicity contains "deep roots." (Farmer, "Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor" 1994, pp. 237–46. University of California Press).

Source:[[Template:Copyright Details (US Government)]]

==See Also==
*[[Guatemala City Guatemala Temple]]

[[Category:Central American Countries]]
[[Category:Mayan world]]

Atomic bomb

2008-04-17T23:10:48Z

Giovanni33: why the revert?

[[Image:Abomb.jpg|right|200px]]

The '''atomic bomb''' was the name used in the 1950s for the first of what are now called '''nuclear weapons.''' It was originally developed out of fear that the Germans were also working on such a weapon (as in fact they were, although they did not get very far with their project.) This development represented the peak of [[Technological Development|technology]] in World War II.

The secret wartime project that developed the bomb was called by the code name ''the Manhattan project.'' It had nothing to do with Manhattan. Much the development took place at Los Alamos, New Mexico. The town, laboratories, production and test facilities built there for the Manhattan Project became what is today the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The United States dropped two atomic bombs named [[Little Boy]] and [[Fat Man]] on the Japanese cities of [[Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasaki]], bringing the war between the US and Japan to a swift and decisive end. The morality of the use of the bombs is debated because of a fear of atomic technology, and because of the huge loss of civilian life (140,000 at Hiroshima, 70,000 at Nagasaki). U. S. officials have said that the entire cities were proper military targets, and that because the bombings ended the war so quickly, fewer Japanese civilians were killed than if the bombs had not been used. The US dropped warning leaflets on the cities urging the Japanese to evacuate, but they did not. Since the US used both of these nuclear weapons in 1945 no other country has used the atomic bomb in war. The bombs and subsequent surrender also prevented the annexation of Japan's northern islands by the Soviet Union <ref>http://www.afsc.org/newengland/pesp/DecisionToUseABomb.htm</ref><ref>http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/web/20050902-atom-bomb-hiroshima-nagasaki-enola.shtml</ref>.
The atomic bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ''fission'' weapons, which detonate with a massive explosion due to the release of the binding energy in within the nucleus of the atom. Specifically, neutrons in a rapid chain reaction split the nuclei of a heavy chemical element, such as plutonium or uranium, to cause the massive release of energy.

After [[World War II]], nuclear weapon research continued with the development of the [[fusion]] or [[thermonuclear weapon]]. Many tests of these weapons were conducted during the [[Cold War]], but most of these tests took place on remote Pacific islands that were US territories or in the upper atmosphere. These weapons massively exceeded the power of the [[fission]] bombs dropped on Japan. Simultaneously, and as a civilian spinoff from the military program, there were developments in the production of clean and efficient [[nuclear energy]] for civilian electrical generation. The threat of the use nuclear bombs was a major issue in the [[Cold War]]. Today, the thirty-year threat of the use of nuclear weapons to prevent international aggression have been credited by many with helping avoid another world war.

==Atomic Bombings as Instances of State Terrorism==

Some legal scholars, [[historians]], other governments, and human rights organizations have characterized the United States' [[World War II]] [[Nuclear warfare|nuclear attacks]] against the [[Empire of Japan]] as state terrorism. The [[atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki]] remain the only time a state has used nuclear weapons against concentrated civilian populated areas. Some commentators hold that it represents the single greatest act of state terrorism in the [[20th century]].<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Frey
| first =Robert S.
| title = The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond
| publisher =University Press of America
| date =2004
| id = ISBN 0761827439 }} Reviewed at:
{{cite journal
| last = Rice
| first =Sarah
| title =The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond (Review)
| journal =Harvard Human Rights Journal
| volume =Vol. 18
| date =2005
| url = http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss18/booknotes-Genocidal.shtml
| accessdate = }}</ref><ref>
{{cite journal
| last = Dower
| first =John
| title =The Bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Memory
| journal =Diplomatic History
| volume =Vol. 19
| issue =no. 2
| date =1995
| url =
| accessdate = }}</ref>

The role of the bombings in [[Surrender of Japan|Japan's surrender]] and the United States' justification for them has been the subject of scholarly and popular debate for decades. J. Samuel Walker writes in an April 2005 overview of recent historiography on the issue, "the controversy over the use of the bomb seems certain to continue."<ref> {{cite journal|title=Recent Literature on Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground|journal=Diplomatic History|date=[[2005-April]]|first=J. Samuel|last=Walker|coauthors=|volume=29|issue=2|pages=334|id= |url=|format=|accessdate=2008-01-30 }}</ref> Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Some allege that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world.<ref>{{cite web | title=Atomic Bomb: Decision — Target Committee, May 10–11, 1945 | url=http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html | accessmonthday= August 6 | accessyear= 2005 }}</ref> The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers.<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Eisenhower
| first = Dwight D.
| authorlink =Dwight D. Eisenhower
| title = The White House Years; Mandate For Change: 1953-1956
| publisher = Doubleday & Company
| date =1963
| pages = pp. 312-313
| id = }}</ref><ref name="Hiroshima: Quotes">
{{cite web
| title=Hiroshima: Quotes
| url=http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
| accessmonthday = August 6
| accessyear= 2005 }}</ref><ref name="Bard Memorandum">
{{cite web
| title=Bard Memorandum
| url=http://www.dannen.com/decision/bardmemo.html
| accessmonthday = May 8
| accessyear = 2006 }}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
| title=Decision: Part I
| url=http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm
| accessmonthday = August 6
| accessyear= 2005 }}</ref><ref name = "CD"> {{cite journal
| first =Robert
| last =Freeman
| coauthors =
| year =2006
| month =August 6
| title =Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?
| journal =CommonDreams.org
| volume =
| issue =
| pages =
| id =
| url =http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
| url = http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw
| title = United States Strategic Bombing Survey; Summary Report
| accessmonthday = July 28
| accessyear = 2006
| author =
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| date =
| year = 1946
| month =
| format =
| work =
| publisher = United States Government Printing Office
| pages = pg. 26
}}</ref><ref name = "CD" />

The sociologist Kai Erikson has alleged that the attacks "...were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing...the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human beings for the sake of making a point?"<ref name="ZinnBreakingSilence"> {{cite web|url=http://polymer.bu.edu/~amaral/Personal/zinn.html |title=Hiroshima; Breaking the Silence |accessdate=2008-01-30 |first=Howard Zinn }}</ref>

Historian [[Howard Zinn]] writes: "if 'terrorism' has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."<ref name="ZinnBreakingSilence" />

[[Michael Walzer]] wrote of it as an example of "...war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."<ref>{{cite journal
| author = Walzer, Michael
| name = Dissent Magazine
| title = Five Questions About Terrorism
| publisher = Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc.
| date = 2002
| url = http://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/LpB/Lehre/WS%2002-03/Walzer%20on%20Terror.pdf
| volume = 49
| issue = 1
| accessdate=2007-07-11}}</ref>

Professor [[C.A.J. (Tony) Coady]] is head of the [[Australian Research Council]] [[Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE)]] and studies political violence, [[Just War Theory]], [[Terrorism]], and [[Humanitarian intervention]].<ref> {{cite web|url=http://www.cappe.edu.au/staff/tony-coady.htm |title=Professor Tony Coady |accessdate=2008-01-30 }}</ref> He writes in ''Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World'': "Several of the contributors consider the issue of state terrorism and there is a general agreement that states not only can sponsor terrorism by non state groups but that states can, and do, directly engage in terrorism. Coady instances the terror bombings of World War II, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as acts of terrorism."<ref>{{cite book|title = Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World |publisher = Melbourne University Publishing |year = 2004 |month = June |last = Coady |first = Tony |ISBN = 0-52285049-9 |pages = XV}}</ref>

Mark Selden, professor of sociology and history at [[Binghamton University]] and author of ''War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century'', writes, "This deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare."<ref>{{cite news | first=Mark | last=Selden | coauthors= | title=Terrorism Before and After 9-11 | date=[[2002-09-09]] | publisher=[[Znet]] | url =http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2310 | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2008-01-30 | language = }}</ref>

[[Richard A. Falk]], professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at [[Princeton University]] has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of [[state terrorism]]. He writes "The graveyards of [[Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|Hiroshima and Nagasaki]] are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism... Consider the hypocrisy of an Administration that portrays [[Qaddafi]] as barbaric while preparing to inflict terrorism on a far grander scale... Any counter terrorism policy worth the name must include a convincing indictment of the First World variety."<ref name="falk" />. He also writes:

{{quote|Undoubtedly the most extreme and permanently traumatizing instance of state terrorism, perhaps in the history of warfare, involved the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in military settings in which the explicit function of the attacks was to terrorize the population through mass slaughter and to confront its leaders with the prospect of national annihilation....the idea that massive death can be deliberately inflicted on a helpless civilian population as a tactic of war certainly qualifies as state terror of unprecedented magnitude, particularly as the United States stood on the edge of victory, which might well have been consummated by diplomacy.|Richard Falk|''War and State Terrorism''<ref>Falk, Richard. "State Terror versus Humanitarian Law",in Selden,, Mark, editor (November 28, 2003). War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.. ISBN 978-0742523913. ,45</ref>}}

While paying tribute to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, [[Hugo Chavez]] - President of Venezuela - referred to the bombings as "the greatest act of terrorism in recorded history."<ref>{{cite news | first=Maria Salomé | last=Campanioni | coauthors= | title=Chavez Calls Dropping of A-Bomb, 'Greatest Act of Terrorism in Recorded History' | date=[[2005-08-08]] | publisher= | url =http://www.watchingamerica.com/radiorebelde000001.html | work =watchingamerica.com | pages = | accessdate = 2008-01-30 | language = }}</ref>

Burleigh Taylor Wilkins states in Terrorism and Collective Responsibility that "any definition which allowed the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to count as instances of terrorism would be too broad." He goes on to explain "The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while obviously intended by the American government to alter the policies of the Japanese government, seem for all the terror they involved, more an act of war than of terrorism."<ref>{{cite book|title=Terrorism and Collective Responsibility |publisher=Routledge |last=Wilkins |first=Taylor |isbn=0-41504152-X |pages=11}}</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Weapons]]

User talk:Giovanni33

2008-04-17T23:09:28Z

Giovanni33:

Where is your source for your recent edits? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:The sources are provided within the edits. What particular part which is unsourced do you ask about? Also, for some reason, my talk page--and everything--was locked from editing, so I could not respond to you. In an attempt to see if it was related to my account I created another account Gio33, to test: same result. But, i did not use that other account to make any edits. Just want to disclose that.
:But my question to do, is why did you revert my contributions? Thanks.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 19:09, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Iran

2008-04-17T06:29:13Z

Giovanni33: /* Relations with the United States */ expand section on US relations involved in Iran

El Salvador

2008-04-17T06:27:04Z

Giovanni33: /* US involvement */

El Salvador

2008-04-17T06:26:06Z

Giovanni33: /* History */ Historical background info about Civil war from 80-92, with section on US role.

{{Country
|name =''República de El Salvador''
|map =Elsalvador.jpg
|flag =Flag of El Salvador.png
|arms =Arms of El Salvador.png
|capital =San Salvador
|capital-raw =
|government =Republic
|government-raw =
|language =Spanish
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Antonio Saca
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =8,124 sq mi
|pop =6,948,073 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$36.246 billion (2005)
|gdp-pc =$5,515 (2005)
|currency =U.S. dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''El Salvador''' (''Republica de El Salvador'') is a [[republic]] in [[Central America]], bounded to its west by [[Guatemala]], to its north and east by [[Honduras]] and to its south by the [[Pacific Ocean]]. It has an area of 8,124 sq miles (21,041 sq km) and a population (2006) of 6.8 million. The capital is [[San Salvador]] (1998 pop 1.2 million).

==Geography==
El Salvador is largely mountainous, formed of numerous extinct [[volcano]]es.

==People==
El Salvador's population numbers about 5.7 million. Almost 90% is of mixed Indian and Spanish extraction. About 1% is indigenous; very few Indians have retained their customs and traditions. The country's people are largely Roman Catholic and Protestant. Spanish is the language spoken by virtually all inhabitants. The capital city of San Salvador has about 2.2 million people; an estimated 40.3% of El Salvador's population lives in rural areas.
*Population (2007 est.): 5.7 million.
*Annual growth rate (2005 est.): 1.7%.
*Ethnic groups: Mestizo 90%, indigenous 1%, Caucasian 9%.
*Religion: About 52% Roman Catholic, with significant and growing numbers of Protestant groups.
*Language: Spanish.
*Education: Free through ninth grade. Attendance (grades 1-9)-90.4%. Literacy--84.5% nationally; 76.3% in rural areas.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2003)--24.6/1,000. Life expectancy at birth (2006)--71.8 years.
*Work force (about 2.5 million, 2004): Agriculture--19.1%; services--49.8%; industry--16.8%; construction--6.4%; government--7.3%; other--0.6%.

==Government==
El Salvador is a democratic republic governed by a president and an 84-member unicameral Legislative Assembly. The president is elected by universal suffrage and serves for a 5-year term by absolute majority vote. A second round runoff is required in the event that no candidate receives more than 50% of the first round vote. Members of the assembly, also elected by universal suffrage, serve for 3-year terms. The country has an independent judiciary and Supreme Court. The next elections will be held in February and March 2009.

===National Civilian Police===
The civilian police force, created to replace the discredited public security forces, deployed its first officers in March 1993, and was present throughout the country by the end of 1994. The National Civilian Police (PNC) has about 16,000 officers. The United States, through the International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP), led international support for the PNC and the National Public Security Academy (ANSP), providing about $32 million in non-lethal equipment and training since 1992.

===Judiciary===
Both the Truth Commission and the Joint Group identified weaknesses in the judiciary and recommended solutions, the most dramatic being the replacement of all the magistrates on the Supreme Court. This recommendation was fulfilled in 1994 when an entirely new court was elected, but weaknesses remain. The process of replacing incompetent judges in the lower courts, and of strengthening the attorney generals' and public defender's offices, has moved more slowly. The government continues to work in all of these areas with the help of international donors, including the United States. Action on peace accord-driven constitutional reforms designed to improve the administration of justice was largely completed in 1996 with legislative approval of several amendments and the revision of the Criminal Procedure Code--with broad political consensus.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Elias Antonio "Tony" SACA
*Vice President--Ana Vilma Albanez DE ESCOBAR
*Minister of Foreign Relations--Francisco LAINEZ
*Ambassador to the United States--Rene Antonio Rodriguez LEON
*Representative to the OAS--Abigail CASTRO DE PEREZ
*Representative to the UN--Carmen Maria GALLARDO de Hernandez

===Political Landscape===
Hard-line conservatives, including some members of the military, created the Nationalist Republican Alliance party (ARENA) in 1981. ARENA almost won the election in 1984 with solid private sector and rural farmer support. By 1989, ARENA had attracted the support of business groups. Multiple factors contributed to ARENA victories in the 1988 legislative and 1989 presidential elections, including allegations of corruption in the ruling Christian Democratic party, poor relations with the private sector, and historically low prices for the nation's main agricultural exports.

The successes of Alfredo Cristiani's 1989-94 administration in achieving a peace agreement to end the civil war and in improving the nation's economy helped ARENA--led by former San Salvador mayor Armando Calderon Sol--keep both the presidency and a working majority in the Legislative Assembly in the 1994 elections. ARENA's legislative position was weakened in the 1997 elections, but it recovered its strength, helped by divisions in the opposition, in time for another victory in the 1999 presidential race, bringing President Francisco Guillermo Flores Perez to office. Flores concentrated on modernizing the economy and strengthening bilateral relations with the U.S. by becoming a committed partner in anti-terror efforts, sending troops to aid in the reconstruction of Iraq, and by playing a key role in negotiations for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

Taking advantage of both public apprehension of Flores' policies and ARENA infighting, the chief opposition party, the Farabundo Marti Liberation Front (FMLN), was able to score a significant victory against ARENA in the March 2003 legislative and municipal elections. ARENA, left with only 29 seats in the 84-seat Legislative Assembly, was forced to court the right-wing National Conciliation Party (PCN) in order to form a majority voting bloc. However, in 2003 the PCN entered into a loose partnership with the FMLN, further limiting ARENA's ability to maneuver in the legislature.

Despite these constraints, ARENA made a strong showing at the March 2004 presidential election, which was marked by an unprecedented 67% voter turnout. ARENA candidate Elias "Tony" Saca handily defeated the FMLN candidate and party head Schafik Handal, garnering 57.71% of the votes cast. Nevertheless, Saca faced a complex political environment.
The defeat of FMLN's presidential candidate rekindled an FMLN internal struggle between party hardliners and more moderate party members who saw the party's 2004 defeat as a call for reform. In addition, the PCN and the two parties that comprise the center/center-left coalition, the United Democratic Center (CDU) and the Christian Democratic Party (PDC), faced dissolution for failing to each capture at least 3% of the votes. Members of all three parties, whose deputies continued to hold seats in the legislature, publicly discussed creating new parties or aligning with existing ones.

In March 12, 2006 Legislative Assembly and municipal elections, the ruling ARENA party garnered 34 Assembly deputies and 147 mayoralties, while the opposition FMLN won 32 legislative seats and 51 city halls (plus 8 additional mayoralties in which they participated as part of a coalition). The PCN, PDC, and CD carried 10, 6, and 2 Legislative Assembly seats, respectively. As with the 2003-2006 Assembly, the combined 44 seats of ARENA and their center-right PCN allies are sufficient for all legislation requiring a 43-vote simple majority, while the FMLN can still block legislation requiring a two-thirds (56 vote) supermajority. El Salvador's political parties have already begun preparation and planning for 2009, when presidential, Legislative Assembly, and municipal elections will be held simultaneously for the first time since 1994.

===Foreign Relations===
El Salvador is a member of the United Nations and several of its specialized agencies, the Organization of American States (OAS), the Central American Common Market (CACM), the Central American Parliament, and the Central American Integration System. It actively participates in the Central American Security Commission (CASC), which seeks to promote regional arms control. From 2002-03, El Salvador was chair of the OAS anti-terrorism coordinating body, CICTE. El Salvador also is a member of the World Trade Organization and is pursuing regional free trade agreements. An active participant in the Summit of the Americas process, El Salvador chairs a working group on market access under the Free Trade Area of the Americas initiative. El Salvador has joined its six Central American neighbors in signing the Alliance for Sustainable Development, known as the Conjunta Centroamerica-USA or CONCAUSA to promote sustainable economic development in the region.

El Salvador enjoys normal diplomatic and trade relations with all of its neighboring countries including Honduras, with which it has previously had territorial disputes. While the two nations continue to disagree over the status of their maritime borders in the Gulf of Fonseca, they have agreed to settle their land-border disputes with the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In September 1992, the Court awarded most of the territory in question to Honduras. In January 1998, Honduras and El Salvador signed a border demarcation treaty to implement the terms of the ICJ decree although delays continue due to technical difficulties.

==Human Rights and Post-War Reforms==
During the 12-year civil war, human rights violations by both the government security forces and left-wing guerillas were rampant. The accords established a Truth Commission under UN auspices to investigate the most serious cases. The commission reported its findings in 1993. It recommended that those identified as human rights violators be removed from all government and military posts. Thereafter, the Legislative Assembly granted amnesty for political crimes committed during the war. Among those freed as a result were the Salvadoran Armed Forces (ESAF) officers convicted in the November 1989 Jesuit murders and the FMLN ex-combatants held for the 1991 murders of two U.S. servicemen. The peace accords also established the Ad Hoc Commission to evaluate the human rights record of the ESAF officer corps.

In accordance with the peace agreements, the constitution was amended to prohibit the military from playing an internal security role except under extraordinary circumstances. Demobilization of Salvadoran military forces generally proceeded on schedule throughout the process. The Treasury Police, National Guard, and National Police were abolished, and military intelligence functions were transferred to civilian control. By 1993--9 months ahead of schedule--the military had cut personnel from a war-time high of 63,000 to the level of 32,000 required by the peace accords. By 1999, ESAF strength stood at less than 15,000, including uniformed and non-uniformed personnel, consisting of personnel in the army, navy, and air force. A purge of military officers accused of human rights abuses and corruption was completed in 1993 in compliance with the Ad Hoc Commission's recommendations. The military's new doctrine, professionalism, and complete withdrawal from political and economic affairs leave it the most respected institution in El Salvador.

More than 35,000 eligible beneficiaries from among the former guerrillas and soldiers who fought the war received land under the peace accord-mandated land transfer program, which ended in January 1997. The majority of them also have received agricultural credits. The international community, the Salvadoran Government, the former rebels, and the various financial institutions involved in the process continue to work closely together to deal with follow-on issues resulting from the program.

==Economy==
The Salvadoran economy continues to benefit from a commitment to free markets and careful fiscal management. The economy has been growing at a steady and moderate pace since the signing of peace accords in 1992, and poverty has been cut from 66% in 1991 to 35.2 percent in 2005. Much of the improvement in El Salvador's economy is a result of free market policy initiatives carried out by ARENA governments, including the privatization of the banking system, telecommunications, public pensions, electrical distribution and some electrical generation; reduction of import duties; elimination of price controls; and improved enforcement of intellectual property rights. Capping those reforms, on January 1, 2001, the U.S. dollar became legal tender in El Salvador, and the economy is now fully dollarized.
*GDP (2006): $18.57 billion, PPP GDP (2006) $38.62 billion (IMF estimate)
*GDP annual real growth rate (2006): 4.2%.
*Per capita income (2006): $2,656.9, PPP per capita income $5,514.97 (IMF estimate)
*Agriculture (9.8% of GDP, 2006): Products--coffee, sugar, livestock, corn, poultry, and sorghum. Arable, cultivated, or pasture land--68% (2005).
*Industry (21.2% of GDP, 2006): Types--textiles and apparel, medicines, food and beverage processing, clothing, chemical products, petroleum products, electronics.
*Trade (2006): Exports--$3.5 billion: textiles and apparel, coffee, sugar, medicines, iron and steel products, tuna, light manufacturing, and paper products. Major markets--U.S. 57.1%, Central American Common Market (CACM) 29.2%. Imports--$7.6 billion: petroleum, iron products, machines and mechanical devices, cars, medicines, consumer goods, foodstuffs, capital goods, and raw industrial materials. Major suppliers--U.S. 40.46%, CACM 15.1%, Mexico 7.7%.

The Salvadoran government has maintained fiscal discipline during post-war reconstruction and reconstruction following earthquakes in 2001 and hurricanes in 1998 and 2005. Taxes levied by the government include a value added tax of 13%, income tax of 20%, excise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, and import duties. The VAT is the largest source of revenue, accounting for about 55.1% of total tax revenues in 2006. For December of 2007, El Salvador projects a fiscal surplus of 0.6% of GDP. El Salvador's public external debt in May 2007 was about $5.8 billion, 29.9 percent of GDP.

Years of civil war, fought largely in the rural areas, had a devastating impact on agricultural production in El Salvador. A fall in world coffee prices, once a major export earner for El Salvador, has also hurt rural employment. Seeking to develop new growth sectors and employment opportunities, El Salvador created new export industries through fiscal incentives for free trade zones. The largest beneficiary has been the textile and apparel (maquila) sector, which directly provides approximately 70,000 jobs. Services, including retail and financial, have also shown strong employment growth, with about 49.8% of the total labor force now employed in the sector. During the last three years foreign companies have set up 96 new subsidiaries providing 18,000 new jobs, mainly in maquilas, tourism, and telephone call centers.

Remittances from Salvadorans working in the United States are an important source of income for many families in El Salvador. In 2006, the Central Bank estimated that remittances totaled $3.3 billion, and UNDP surveys show that an estimated 22.3 percent of families receive them.

Under its export-led growth strategy launched in 1989, El Salvador has pursued economic integration with its Central American neighbors and negotiated trade agreements with the Dominican Republic, Chile, Mexico, Panama, Taiwan and the United States. The trade agreement with Taiwan will enter into force in 2008. Central America will begin negotiating an Association Agreement with the European Union in 2007. Agreements with Colombia and Canada are under negotiation while agreements with CARICOM and Israel are being considered. Exports in 2006 grew 3.7% while imports grew 11.6%. As in previous years, the large trade deficit was offset by family remittances.

The U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) implemented between El Salvador and the United States on March 1, 2006, provides El Salvador preferential access to U.S. markets. Textiles and apparel, shoes, and processed foods are among the sectors expected to benefit.

In addition to trade benefits, CAFTA-DR also promises to provide a framework for additional reforms on issues such as intellectual property rights, dispute resolution, and customs that will improve El Salvador's investment climate. For sensitive sectors such as agriculture, the agreement includes generous phase-in periods to allow Salvadoran producers an opportunity to become more competitive.

U.S. support for El Salvador's privatization of the electrical and telecommunications markets markedly expanded opportunities for U.S. investment in the country. More than 300 U.S. companies have established either a permanent commercial presence in El Salvador or work through representative offices in the country. The Department of Commerce maintains a Country Commercial Guide for U.S. businesses seeking detailed information on business opportunities in El Salvador.

==Natural Disasters==
Lying on the Pacific's earthquake-prone Ring of Fire and at latitudes plagued by hurricanes, El Salvador's history is a litany of catastrophe, including the Great Hurricane of 1780 that killed 22,000 in Central America and earthquakes in 1854 and 1917 that devastated El Salvador and destroyed most of the capital city. More recently, an October 1986 earthquake killed 1,400 and seriously damaged the nation's infrastructure; in 1998, Hurricane Mitch killed 10,000 in the region, although El Salvador--lacking a Caribbean coast--suffered less than Honduras and Nicaragua. Major earthquakes in January and February of 2001 took another 1,000 lives and left thousands more homeless and jobless. El Salvador's largest volcano, Santa Ana (also known by its indigenous name Ilamatepec), erupted in October 2005, spewing tons of sulfuric gas, ash, and rock on surrounding communities and coffee plantations and killing two people and permanently displaced 5,000. Also in October 2005, Hurricane Stan unleashed heavy rains that caused flooding throughout El Salvador. In all, the flooding caused 67 deaths, and more than 50,000 people were evacuated at some point during the crisis. Damages from the storm were estimated at $355.6 million.

==History==
The Pipil Indians, descendants of the Aztecs , and the Pocomames and Lencas were the original inhabitants of El Salvador,

The first Salvadoran territory visited by Spaniards was on Meanguera Island, located in the Gulf of Fonseca, where Spanish Admiral, Andrés Niño, lead an expedition to Central America and disembarked on May 31, 1522. In June 1524 the Spanish Captain Pedro de Alvarado started a war to conquest Cuzcatlan. His cousin Diego de Alvarado established the village of San Salvador in April 1525. In 1546, Charles I of Spain granted San Salvador the title of city.

During the subsequent years, the country evolved under Spanish rule; however, towards the end of the year 1810 many people began to express discontent. On November 5, 1811, when the Priest José Matias Delgado, clang the bells of La Merced Church in San Salvador, calling for insurrection, the people began to officially band together for freedom.

In 1821, El Salvador and the other Central American provinces declared their independence from Spain. When these provinces were joined with Mexico in early 1822, El Salvador resisted, insisting on autonomy for the Central American countries. In 1823, the United Provinces of Central America was formed of the five Central American states under Gen. Manuel Jose Arce. When this federation was dissolved in 1838, El Salvador became an independent republic. El Salvador's early history as an independent state--as with others in Central America--was marked by frequent revolutions; not until the period 1900-30 was relative stability achieved. Following a deterioration in the country's democratic institutions in the 1970s a period of civil war followed from 1980-1992. More than 75,000 people are estimated to have died in the conflict. In January 1992, after prolonged negotiations, the opposing sides signed peace accords which ended the war, brought the military under civilian control, and allowed the former guerillas to form a legitimate political party and participate in elections.

===El Salvador (1980-92)===
==== Background of Civil War ====
The [[Salvadoran Civil War]] was predominantly fought between the government of [[El Salvador]] and guerrilla groups between [[1980]] and [[1992]]. The US accused the [[Sandinistas]] in Nicaragua, who took power in 1979, of arming and training the guerrillas.<ref>"[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_v86/ai_4549750 Nicaragua's role in revolutionary internationalism - statement by Vernon A. Walters] ''US Department of State Bulletin'', October, 1986</ref>

In retrospective assessments, human rights organizations and truth commissions have echoed the claim that the majority of the violence was attributable to government forces.<ref>El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Americas Watch, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991</ref><ref>El Salvador: `Death Squads' — A Government Strategy. New York: Amnesty International, 1988. </ref><ref>From Madness to Hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador:
Report of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador, [http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_toc.html] </ref>A report of an Amnesty International investigative mission made public in 1984 stated that "many of the 40,000 people killed in the preceding five years had been murdered by government forces who openly dumped mutilated corpses in an apparent effort to terrorize the population."<ref>Amnesty International Annual Report, 1985</ref> In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992.<ref>El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Americas Watch, [[Human Rights Watch]] Books, Yale University Press, 1991, 107</ref><ref> Sunday, 24 March, 2002, U.S. role in Salvador's brutal war, BBC News [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1891145.stm] </ref>

While peasants were primarily victimized, the killing of civilians extended to clergy, church workers, political activists, journalists, union members, health workers, students, teachers, and human rights monitors.<ref>El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Americas Watch, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991, p.vii</ref>The state terror took several forms. Salvadoran security forces, including army battalions, members of the National Guard, and the Treasury Police, performed numerous clearance operations, killing indiscriminately, and perpetrating many massacres and massive human rights violations in the process.<ref>McClintock, Mchael, The American Connection: State Terror and Popular Resistance in El Salvador, Zed Books, p.308</ref><ref>El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Americas Watch, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991, 47</ref>

[[Death squads]] worked in conjunction with Salvadoran Security services to eliminate opponents, leftist rebels, and their supporters.<ref>Martin, Gus, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues, Sage Publications, 2003,p.110.
</ref> The squads were a means by which members of the armed forces were able to avoid accountability. Typically dressing in plainclothes and using vehicles with smoke-tinted windows and numberless license plates, terror tactics included publishing death lists of future victims, delivering empty coffins to the doorsteps of future victims and sending potential victims invitations to their own funeral.<ref> El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Americas Watch, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991, 21 </ref> Cynthia Arnson, a long-time writer on Latin America for Human Rights Watch, argues that “the objective of death squad terror seemed not only elimination of opponents, but also, through torture and the gruesome disfiguration of bodies, the terrorization of the population.”<ref>Arnson, Cynthia J. Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador in “Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability”, Campbell and Brenner, eds,86</ref>
In the mid-1980s state terror in El Salvador increasingly took the form of indiscriminate air forces bombing, the planting of mines and harassment of national and international medical personnel- “all indicate that although death rates attributable to death squads have declined in El Salvador since 1983, non-combatant victims of the civil war have increased dramatically.<ref> Lopez, George A.- Terrorism in Latin America in “The Politics of Terrorism”, Michael Stohl, ed.</ref>

The rebels also committed human rights violations. It was considered legitimate to physically eliminate people who were labelled military targets, traitors or "orejas" (informers), and even political opponents. The murders of mayors, right-wing intellectuals, public officials and judges are examples of this mentality.[http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_casesA.html]

The [[FMLN]], one guerrilla groups, was also accused of human rights violations, using terrorist tactics such as kidnappings, arson, and bombings to destabilize the regime.[http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=228] It is now one of the two major political parties of the country.

==== US involvement ====
The United States has been accused by scholars and human rights organizations of complicity in support of State Terrorism in the country of El Salvador, in a conflict characterized by rampant [[human rights]] abuses and [[political terror]].<ref>Arnson, Cynthia J. Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador in “Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability”, Campbell and Brenner, eds, 85</ref> In his analysis of the U.N. Truth Commission's Report on El Salvador, Prof. Frederick Garneau argued for significant culpability on the part of United States governments.
{{quote|As is usually the case with truth commissions, the one for El Salvador did not focus on Washington's support for the government. .. That terror was committed in El Salvador is not disputed. Those who doubt this should reread the above and realize that an estimated 75,000 were killed in this small country in the period 1980 to 1991. The truth commission found that the terrorism that was committed in the country was overwhelmingly governmental terrorism, committed by the Salvadoran army, the National Guard, and their death squads and affiliated agencies. They were responsible for 95 percent of the deaths, the guerrillas for only five percent. These were the same institutions that were the concern and the favorites of Washington—receiving its indoctrination and training and profiting from its largess. El Salvador received six billion dollars in aid from Washington in the period 1979 to 1992. This subsidy to the tiny country during the government repression and terrorism came to average out at $100,000 for each member of its armed forces. This subsidy allowed the government to pay for the terrorist activities committed by the security forces. By virtue of this largess and the military training, notably in counterinsurgency warfare, Washington emerges in this chapter as an accessory before and during the fact. By covering up for San Salvador after it had committed terror, Washington was an accessory after the fact. It gave diplomatic support to state terrorism.|Frederick H. Gareau|<ref>Frederick H. Gareau, State Terrorism and the United States : From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism / (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2004) 41</ref>}}

The episode of the war responsible for the single largest civilian death toll occurred on December 11, 1981, when the U.S.-trained elite [[Atlacatl Battalion]] of the Salvadoran army killed approximately nine hundred men, women, and children in and around the village of [[El Mozote Massacre|El Mozote]]. Human rights violations included decapitation, raping young girls before killing them, and massacring men, women, and children in separate groups with U.S.-supplied M-16 rifles.<ref>Menjivar and Rodriquez, State Terror in the U.S.-Latin American Interstate Regime in “When States Kill: Latin America, the U.S., and Technologies of Terror”, Menjivar and Rodriguez, eds. University of Texas Press, 2004</ref> A report compiled by the villagers found that more half of the victims were under fourteen.<ref>Leogrande, William M. Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992, University of North Carolina Press,155</ref> It is reputed to be the worst such atrocity in modern [[Latin America]]n history,{{Fact|date=March 2008}} but when news emerged of the massacre, the [[Ronald Reagan|Reagan]] administration in the [[United States]] dismissed it as [[Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front|FMLN]] propaganda.<ref>{{cite book|title=Coffee and Power: Revolution and the Rise of Democracy in Central America |first=Jeffery M. |last=Paige |page=345 |year=1997 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=0-67413649-7}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=El Salvador: The Massacre at El Mozote : the Need to Remember |author=Americas Watch Committee |year=1992 |publisher=Americas Watch |page=15}}</ref>

The prototype of the El Salvadoran [[death squads]] was ORDEN, a paramilitary spy network that allegedly terrorized rural regions and which was founded by Col. Jose Alberto Medrano, a former agent on the CIA payroll. Medrano was awarded a silver medal in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, "in recognition of exceptionally meritorious service."<ref>Americas Watch Committee and American Civil Liberties Union, Report on Human Rights in El Salvador, January 26, 1982, p.183</ref><ref>Chomsky, Noam, Turning the Tide: The U.S. and Latin America, Black Rose Books, p.98</ref>

One of Medrano's proteges, [[Roberto D'Aubuisson]], a graduate of the Salvadoran military academy, was also trained at The [[School of the Americas]] and the International Police Academy in the suburbs of Washington D.C. <ref>Bonner, Raymond, Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador, New York Times Books,1984, p.308</ref> D'Aubuisson was founder of the [[Nationalist Republican Alliance]] (ARENA) whose public face was that of a rightist political party, but which allegedly also ran death squads secretly. In the spring of 1980, when D'Aubuisson was arrested for plotting against the administration of [[José Napoleón Duarte]], a mass of documents was found implicating him in numerous death squad activities, including detailed plans linked to the assassination of Archbishop [[Oscar Romero]]. The Reagan administration was accused of ignoring the evidence implicating D'Aubuisson.<ref>Bonner, Raymond, Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador, New York Times Books,1984, p.308</ref> Critics of this view argue that [[Roberto D'Aubuisson]]'s sole link to the SOA is that he had taken a course in Radio Operations long before El Salvador's civil war began.<ref>{{cite web|author=Paul Mulshine|title=The War in Central America Continues|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20021219221936/http:/216.247.220.66/archives/politics/watchwar.htm|accessdaymonth=6 November |accessyear=2007}}</ref>

El Salvador became the fourth largest recipient of U.S. aid, behind Israel, Egypt, and Turkey.<ref>Bonner, Raymond, Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador.</ref> In a joint 1982 report on human rights in El Salvador, The Americas Watch Committee and the ACLU place emphasis on U.S. military aid and training because it was "being provided to the same units alleged to be engaged in violations of human rights."<ref>Americas Watch Committee and American Civil Liberties Union, Report on Human Rights in El Salvador, January 26, 1982, p.179</ref> [[Human Rights First|The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights]] argued that because of the extensive provision of “funding, military equipment, training and military guidance” to the Salvadoran armed forces, as well as the fact that the U.S. “identified itself unreservedly” with the causes and conduct of the Salvador military, the U.S. “bears a heavy burden of responsibility”, and moreover argued that “there may be no place else where the United States is so directly responsible for the acts of a foreign government.”<ref>The Reagan Administration's Record on Human Rights in 1985, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, The Watch Committees (Americas Watch, Asia Watch, Helsinki Watch), January 1986, p. 53)</ref>

Allegations also point to the role that U.S. administrators played in both protecting the responsible military leaders from legal accountability, and the Salvadoran regime from criticism, while simultaneously maintaining the flow of over one billion dollars of military aid. According to the UN Truth Commission report, over 75% of the serious acts of violence reported took place during the Reagan administration’s time in office.<ref> Doggan, Martha, Death Foretold: The Jesuit Murders in El Salvador, 170</ref> Cynthia Arnson argues that when the killing was at its height, “the Reagan administration downplayed the scale of abuse as well as the involvement of state actors.”<ref>Arnson, Cynthia J. Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador in “Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability”, Campbell and Brenner, eds, 88</ref> When Congress passed a law, unpopular with the Reagan administration, which placed conditions of assurances of human rights compliance and progress on agrarian reforms, the administration issued certification reports every six months that drew heavy criticism, particularly from human rights groups. The first certification report was submitted on January 28, 1982. On the eve of the reports The Washington Post and New York Times published feature articles by American investigative journalists describing massacres in early December of 1981 in and around the village of [[El Mozote]]. The massacres had been mainly perpetrated by the Atlacatl Battalion, the first "rapid response unit" to be trained in the U.S. The certification report was only six pages long. William Leogrande remarked that the report “contained little evidence to support the declaratory judgments that progress had been made in all of the areas required by law. The report refused to acknowledge any government complicity in human rights violations...Moreover the report flatly denied that the paramilitary death squads were linked to the government.”<ref>Leogrande, William M. Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992, University of North Carolina Press</ref> Leogrande further stated that "no independent human rights group agreed with the Reagan administration’s portrait of the situation."<ref> Leogrande, William M. Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992, University of North Carolina Press</ref> The Americas Watch Committee and American Civil Liberties Union jointly referred to the report as a "fraud."<ref> America Watch Committee and American Civil Liberties Union, Report on Human Rights in El Salvador, February 26,1982</ref> Subsequent reports by U.S. agencies on the human rights situation were met with similar incredulity and contempt. A review of the Department of State's 1983 report on human rights in El Salvador by Americas Watch, Helsinki Watch and the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights concluded "all in all, this is a dreadful report."<ref>Americas Watch, Helsinki Watch, Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights, Review of the Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1983, March 1984</ref>The Reagan Administration's actions included vociferous denunciations of their critics. In a retrospective report entitled El Salvador's Decade of Terror: Human Rights Since the Assassination of Archbishop Romero, Human Rights Watch summarized the administration's behavior thusly, "during the Reagan years in particular, not only did the United States fail to press for improvements...but in an effort to maintain backing for U.S. policy, it misrepresented the record of the Salvadoran government and smeared critics who challenged that record. In so doing, the administration needlessly polarized the debate in the United States and did a grave injustice to the thousands of civilian victims of government terror in El Salvador."<ref>Americas Watch, El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991, p. 119</ref>

The extensive role of military advisers in El Salvador has also been raised as suggestive of wider systemic abuses of ethical and legal norms. According to William Leogrande’s analysis “a great deal of the Reagan administration’s policy toward Salvador was considered on what former Senator Sam Irvin called ‘the windy side of the law’. The president used his emergency powers, even when there was no emergency, to send $80 million in military aid to El Salvador without congressional review.” The Reagan administration carried out circumventions and arbitrary re-definitions of laws stipulating the quantity and role of advisers <ref>Leogrande, William M. Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992, University of North Carolina Press,281</ref>.

US officials say that President Bush senior's policies set the stage for peace, turning El Salvador into a democratic success story.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1891145.stm] There was substantial developmental aid during the Carter administration but very little military. The Reagan administration pressed for free elections. The Salvadoran right reluctantly joined this process after it became clear that the administration did not favor a conservative military coup.<ref>Library of Congress. Country Studies. El Salvador. Chapter 1 - Historical Setting [http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/svtoc.html]</ref>

Defenders also justify military aid by claiming it was necessary for defending U.S. National Security Interests. The FMLN guerrillas military efforts, including terrorist acts committed by them, seriously threatened the Salvadoran government. This was deemed a threat to "national security." As president Reagan argued in his historic national television address in 1984, ''"San Salvador is closer to Houston, Texas than Houston is to Washington, D.C. Central America is America; it's at our doorstep. And it has become a stage for a bold attempt by the Soviet Union, Cuba and Nicaragua to install communism by force throughout the hemisphere,"''<ref>Regan Ronald, televised address to the nation, May 9, 1984 from El Salvador:Central America in the New Cold War, Gettleman, Lacefield, Menashe and Mermelstein, eds, Grove Press, New York</ref>. The U.S. State Department provided detailed evidence for the links between the FMLN, Nicaragua, Cuba and the Soviet Union in its White Paper,"The Communist Interference in El Salvador." The document argues that the U.S. chose the most viable middle path between the right and left extremes undermining the country. The U.S. supported the Duarte government which worked with "some success to deal with the serious political and economic problem that most concern the people of El Salvador."<ref>The U.S. State Department, White Paper: Communist Interference in El Salvador from El Salvador: Central America in the New Cold War, Gettleman, Lacefield, Menashe, Mermelstein, eds, Grove Press New York, p.323 </ref> Military aid and training given to Salvador eventually professionalized their armed forces and prevented the insurrection by guerrillas from succeeding. The death of many innocent civilians is regarded as regrettable but necessary for Salvadoran and American security, and future prosperity.{{Fact|date=March 2008}}

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}

[[Category:Central American Countries]]
[[Category:Mayan world]]

Guatemala

2008-04-17T06:22:57Z

Giovanni33: Section on Civil war in Guatemala, and US involvement. Best sources used.

Atomic bomb

2008-04-17T06:14:53Z

Giovanni33: this is minority view, a revisionist take on the bombings, but interesting, well referenced.