Fredrik Mansfield

March 12, 2016

Final Essays

1. The rights set forth in the 1951 Refugee Convention protect individuals whose native

country is uninhabitable due to persecution. However, this restriction of the qualification of a

refugee ignores the hardship caused by poverty. As a result, Central American immigrants are

not given refugee status, thus allowing for harsher restrictions on immigration.

The very definition of a refugee in the 1951 Refugee Convention expresses the partiality

toward the explicitly persecuted refugees. The Convention states that refugees are those who

seek asylum “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted” (“Convention” 14). However, the

document mentions nothing about an economically uninhabitable environment. While extreme

poverty is obviously an unhealthy environment, even to the extent of being recognized as a

human rights violation by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), it is not

recognized as cause for seeking refuge by the 1951 Refugee Convention.

The reason for this is that the convention honors the sovereignty of each state recognized

as competent. The convention excludes individuals who are “recognized by the competent

authorities… as having the rights” recognized by their country of residence (“Convention” 16).

In other words, if an individual’s native country is considered competent and does not recognize

the citizens’ plight as grounds for seeking asylum elsewhere, the 1951 Refugee Convention does

not apply to them. While this honors the sovereignty of the state to manage its people even when

in economic duress, it does not ensure that every human being has the freedom to live with

economic security.
 This definition with its qualifications and restrictions on refugee-status poses a great

threat to Central Americans seeking refuge in the United States. Given the current political

climate surrounding Latin American immigration, a claim for refugee status may be the only

hope of entering the United States. A statement late in 2015 from the Department of Homeland

Security attests to this, confirming the continued “aggressiv[e] work to secure [U.S.] borders”

and “deter future increases in unauthorized migration.” The statement also acknowledges that

“those with legitimate humanitarian claims are afforded the opportunity to seek protection”

(Markon). However, in order to qualify as having legitimate humanitarian claims as a refugee,

the limited definition of a refugee by the convention must apply.

The exclusionary clauses of the definition of a refugee in the 1951 Refugee Convention

also pose an additional difficulty to many Central Americans seeking asylum. In El Salvador, for

example, about eleven percent of the population is in some way connected to a gang, and the

Salvadoran government recently declared gang activity to be acts of terrorism (Gangs). Because

serious crimes invalidates someone from being able to attain refugee status, many Salvadorans

trying to flee from a country with roughly one homicide every hour will have even less hope of

escape because they have “committed a crime against peace” as stated in the 1951 Refugee

Convention (“Convention” 16). While gangs are attempting to provide structure for the poor

people the government has neglected (according to ‘Santiago,’ head of the 18th St. gang in El

Salvador), they are still branded as terrorists, thus being unable to qualify as refugees (Gangs). In

essence, the lack of structure and support that has people wanting to flee the country is also a

contributing factor for why they are not allowed to flee.

The assumptions made in the 1951 Refugee Convention inhibit the economically

oppressed from qualifying for refugee status. The history in Central America of responding to
injustice with insurgency further disqualifies Central Americans from being able to flee their

native land. Until Central American countries are recognized as being incompetent at protecting

the economic and physical security of their citizens, the struggle to seek refuge in other countries

like the U.S. will remain a major challenge for Central Americans.

2. The history of violence in El Salvador reveals some consistent similarities as well as

some differences. Two of the similarities are in the insurgent nature of the violent civilian

groups, and the important role of the church. Two of the differences include the majority opinion

of the general public toward the group, and the role of the U.S. in the violence.

Violence in El Salvador carries the same root cause today as it did in the past, which is a

response to the government’s failure to support the people in their poor conditions. Violence

since the 1930s in El Salvador reflects the people’s dissatisfaction with their economic condition,

as fourteen families held nearly all of the country’s wealth (Godoy). The violence that came to

define the 20th century for El Salvador and many other Latin American countries was in response

to a corrupt state that only worsened the economic and social conditions among the people. It

was out of a sense of injustice at the uninhabitable nature of their circumstances that the people

responded. This response is not immediately or unequivocally rooted in violence – social

movements like nueva canción used artistic expression rather than violence to promote social

and political change (Godoy). While the emphasis of social movements in Latin America is on

change, violence is often understood to be necessary, a desperate response to unyielding

authorities. Central American history also attests to the violent suppression of the government,

which leaves desperate revolutionaries with few viable alternatives to striking back in kind. The
contemporary violence in El Salvador depicts this same narrative – the government, ironically

the same aggregation of revolutionary groups that overthrew the previous regime for its failure to

support the people, is failing to protect its poor citizens. In the vulnerability of government

negligence, these broken communities became breeding grounds for two powerful gangs, MS-13

and 18th St. While most of the violence is due to inter-gang tensions and power struggles, the

gangs share a purpose that closely parallels their insurgent predecessors. With the lack of

institutional structure, 18th St. gang leader “Santiago” describes, the gangs step into local

communities. As VICE news correspondent Danny Gold describes, the lack of “jobs and

opportunities” has led to the strong presence of gangs. But gang leaders like Santiago work

toward bringing peace between gangs and government – that is, if the government had not put

the top leaders in maximum security prisons, leaving the gangs “to their own devices” (Gangs).

Government negligence led to the strong presence of gangs, and the government’s refusal to

cooperate with them has bred the mass violence that plagues Salvadoran streets.

Another important similarity is the role of the church in supporting the people throughout

periods of violence. In the mid-20th century amidst a growing demand for social reform, the

Catholic Church promoted an ideology of liberation theology, advocating for the rights of the

poor and empowering movements for social reform. This can be seen in contemporary

Salvadoran violence and social turmoil. Christian groups are sometimes the only groups willing

to work with gang communities to seek change. Christian volunteer Ricardo Portillo shares that

“People don’t want to work with [gangs].” Despite having lost loved ones to gang activity, he

works with the gang communities, recognizing and supporting their desire for social reform. In

his own words, “Gang members are asking the government nothing more than, ‘Hear us out!

Hear us out!’” (Gangs). While tensions and fear directed at gangs are understandable given the
violence they commit, cooperation with the gangs is necessary in order to reduce the violence

and social unrest in El Salvador.

There are also differences between violence today and in the past for El Salvador. One

major difference is the way the general public perceives the violence. In the past, the public saw

the violence and atrocities as being the fault of the oppressive government. They weren’t wrong,

either – only five percent of deaths were the result of guerrilla fighters, the resounding majority

of deaths being at the hand of government soldiers (Godoy). As a result, “some from El Mozote”

and other villages “had been [guerrilla] supporters,” not least of which involved maintaining a

commercial relationship with guerrilla fighters (Danner 54). While guerrilla support was not

unanimous, the antagonism was largely directed at the government. In contemporary El

Salvador, however, “people are tired of all the violence… so they’re asking for strong measures

[against gangs] to be taken” (Gangs). Gangs, as the predominant source of the violence, are

feared and reviled by most of the public.

Another major difference is the role of the United States in the violence then and now.

During the Salvadoran Civil War, The U.S. aided the Salvadoran government in upholding a

“’friendly’ regime,” as a method of stopping the spread of communism. This aid involved “more

than 4 billion dollars” toward military training and supplies (Danner 53). U.S. support played a

major role in the scale and duration of the conflict of the civil war. At the present, however, the

United States is more concerned with hindering the growing number of immigrants than

addressing the source of the problem. The U.S. is currently funding programs to guard the U.S.

Southern border better, and has put pressure on Mexico to strengthen their borders as well

(Markon). U.S. aid is focused much less today on addressing the violence, but rather on reducing

the immigration it has to face.

 Despite the differences in the Salvadoran violence of past and present, the violence is

rooted in the same concern – vulnerability. This is not a new issue in this region, but one that has

existed since the country’s decolonization. Being left with an oligarchy and extreme wealth

inequality, the poor faced the vulnerability of economic insecurity. This can be historically

attested – early rebellions were aimed at breaking the oligarchy, and the movement of liberation

theology centered on justice for the poor (Godoy). Despite the FMLN - “which used to represent

the poor people” - overthrowing the old Salvadoran government, “the poor have remained poor”

(Gangs). El Salvador is experiencing the perpetuation of historic struggles of vulnerability.

While it manifests itself differently, from guerrilla warfare to gang violence, the root problem is

the same.

3. The United States is offering increased aid to Central American countries as part of its

response to the problem of unauthorized migration. In designing that aid, are there lessons from

past attempts to deal with human rights challenges in Latin America that should shape decisions

about how the money gets spent? Name two such lessons and how they should determine

funding priorities.

The United States has caused far more damage in Latin America than it has addressed,

and if the United States has the best interest of the people of Latin America in mind, it needs to

learn from past failures at addressing human rights violations. One such example is the spread of

neoliberalism to Latin America. Beginning in the 1980s, international organizations like the IMF

and World Bank – both operating heavily under U.S. influence (Green 41) – pushed loans and

neoliberal ideology onto many Latin American countries with the projected intent to improve

their economies (40). However, this only enabled further economic exploitation of Latin
American resources and workers, leading to massive riots against the IMF and neoliberalism

(39). While most economists hold that “free trade is superior” than other systems for a country’s

economy (Rodrik), for those living under such an economy, “sweatshops have become the

symbol of the perverse effects of neoliberal globalization” (Rodrıguez 64). GDP and economic

theory aside, the U.S. push for neoliberalism in Latin America had only benefited U.S.

corporations like Nike, to the grave detriment of the local people (73). Regardless of intent,

projected or authentic, the results are what need to be measured. Given the ongoing economic

and social vulnerability in many Latin American countries at the hand of American economic

policies and practices, the United States cannot deny that its continued encouragement of

neoliberal economics in Latin America have done anything for human rights besides exacerbate

the issues.

Another example of a failure of United States aid in Latin America is the United States’

aggressive anticommunist agenda. A clear example of this is in Chile, when the U.S. fought to

get socialist Salvador Allende out of office. In blocking Chile’s economy and fueling a coup

d'etat against Allende, the U.S. put the infamous dictator Pinochet in power and were indirectly

responsible for 3,197 deaths and disappearances, 27,000 cases of incarcerations without trial and

with torture, and roughly 200,000 affected psychologically (Godoy). Atrocities of such scale

cannot simply be ignored or excused as an aberration, even if the results of U.S. involvement in

Chile were a unique case within U.S. foreign intervention. The effects of U.S. political

intervention in Latin America, however, reveals that this narrative remains quite consistent. U.S.

support of the Salvadoran government during their civil war led to the death of 75,000 civilians,

with an unknown number disappeared (Godoy). This calamitous narrative remains consistent in

Guatemala, Cuba, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and more (Agosín 63). The United
States has a history of causing damage in Latin America as early as Roosevelt’s Panama Canal

and earlier. In order to promote an agenda that promotes human rights in Latin America, the

United States has to abandon their current way of looking at problems in Latin America.

The current method that the United States addresses concerns in Latin America is by

taking steps to make Latin American countries best for the United States. Whether this method is

at all intentional, it has been the prevalent and consistent underlying factor in U.S. decision-

making. As aforementioned, anti-communist measures were taken to support the American

capitalist agenda, as was the push for neoliberal globalization. The aid under assessment in this

very question is about reducing immigration to the United States, a goal that benefits the

American conservative agenda. In order to effectively address human rights issues in Central

America, the United States has to fully relinquish their own incentives. The best way to do so is

to offer economic aid to Central American countries with no strings attached. This has its own

problems, as the government is not currently representing the agenda of the people. One

significant measure that can be taken to address the human rights concerns is to absolve national

debts to the IMF, World Bank, and the IDB. This does not address the current violence, but it

alleviates much of the countries’ debt bondage, allowing them to invest their finances into the

poor communities with a strong gang presence.

Ultimately, the United States must abandon its own agenda when providing aid for

Central American countries, and for any country. Aid is by definition for the benefit of the

recipient; therefore, it should be questioned and challenged when the beneficiary has its own

interests in providing aid.

 Bibliography

Agosin, Marjone. An Absence of Shadows. Fredonia: White Wine, n.d. Print.

"Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees." UNHCR News. UNHCR, n.d.

Web. 14 Mar. 2016. <http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html>.

Danner, Mark. "The Truth of El Mozote." The New Yorker, 6 Dec. 1993. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.

<http://www.markdanner.com/articles/the-truth-of-el-mozote>.

Gangs of El Salvador. Perf. Danny Gold. VICE News RSS. VICE, 30 Nov. 2015. Web. 14 Mar.

2016. <https://news.vice.com/video/gangs-of-el-salvador-full-length>.

Godoy, Angelina. "Human Rights in Latin America." University of Washington, Seattle. Winter

2016. Lecture.

Green, Duncan. Silent Revolution: The Rise and Crisis of Market Economics in Latin America.

New York: Monthly Review, 2003. Print.

Markon, Jerry, and Joshua Partlow. "Unaccompanied Children Crossing Southern Border in

Greater Numbers Again, Raising Fears of New Migrant Crisis." Washington Post. The

Washington Post, 16 Dec. 2015. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.

<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/12/16/unaccompanied-

children-crossing-southern-border-in-greater-numbers-again-raising-fears-of-new-

migrant-crisis/>.

Rodrıǵ uez Garavito César, and Boaventura De Sousa. Santos. "NIKE’S LAW: THE ANTI-

SWEATSHOP MOVEMENT, TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS, AND THE

STRUGGLE OVER INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS IN THE AMERICAS." Law

 and Globalization from Below: Towards a Cosmopolitan Legality. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge UP, 2005. N. pag. Print.

Rodrik, Dani. "The Rush to Free Trade in the Developing World: Why So Late? Why Now? Will

It Last?" The National Bureau of Economic Research (1992): n. pag. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.