El Salvador worries: Are they even on the Obama administration's radar?
Latin America's continuing turn toward corrupt, leftist government is evident in El Salvador's likely next president, a terrorist. And it spells trouble for U.S. interests in the region.
In the presidential election of Feb. 2, Salvador Sanchez Ceren, of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) party, drew almost 50 percent of the vote. He's expected to win next month's runoff against the Nationalist Republican Alliance (Arena) party's Norman Quijano, who received nearly 39 percent of the vote.
Mr. Sanchez Ceren rose through FMLN ranks in the 1980s and '90s during the party's 12-year civil war against conservative, U.S.-backed governments. More than 75,000 were killed. He was elected vice president in 2009, when FMLN ended Arena's two-decade hold on the presidency.
Sanchez Ceren's close FMLN adviser Jose Luis Merino has ties to Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia drug traffickers who will “spend a lot of money on the runoff” to ensure his victory, says Elliott Abrams, an official in the administrations of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Mr. Merino also is on the advisory board of a Venezuelan state oil company's El Salvador branch that has provided FMLN with subsidized gasoline.
Amazingly, the State Department hasn't even commented on the election. Whether the Obama administration awakens to El Salvador's growing threats remains to be seen.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Arneson firing: Legally dubious
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- Sunday pops
- A hunting question: A Pennsylvania proposal to limit the game that mentored youth hunters can take appears to be a solution in search of a problem
- Radar searches: Get a warrant
- U.N. Watch: Somalia aid sieve