El Salvadoran Protestors Against Water Privatization Being Tried As Terrorists

. . . . According to laws patterned after Patriot Act (& approved by U.S.).

Water, Water, Everywhere, and Not A Drop (For The People) To Drink:

Transcript of Democracy Now!, August 1, 2007 broadcast:

AMY GOODMAN: We turn to El Salvador, where protests against water privatization early last month ended with the arrest of fourteen protesters, thirteen of whom were subsequently charged with committing acts of terrorism.

On July 2, hundreds of people had gathered in the Suchitoto municipality to protest President Antonio Saca’s plan to decentralize water distribution. They saw the plan as an attempt to privatize municipal water resources as stipulated in a 1998 World Bank loan. The protesters were met with heavily armed riot police, who fired rubber bullets and tear gas on the crowd and detained fourteen people. Among those arrested was a journalist covering the protest and members of CRIPDES, the Association of Rural Communities for the Development of El Salvador. They were on their way to attend the rally in Suchitoto.

Last week, the prisoners were released on bail as a result of national and international pressure. But the charges of terrorism remain, and if found guilty, they could face up to sixty years of prison time. El Salvador's antiterrorism law came into effect last year and is modeled on the USA PATRIOT Act. Human rights groups have condemned the government’s response and application of this draconian law. Human Rights Watch said yesterday the law criminalizes a wide variety of acts most of which “do not fall within any reasonable definition of terrorism.”

Today, Krista Hanson joins us, also from Boston, to tell us more. She's the program director at CISPES, the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Krista. Explain what's happening in El Salvador.

KRISTA HANSON: Well, I think that what's really important to know about that event on July 2 in Suchitoto is that it comes from -- I mean, the resistance that was happening there comes from a long history in El Salvador of -- first, of this implementation of privatization. People in El Salvador know what privatization of public resources looks like. The telecommunications, electricity, other industries have been privatized, and the rates go up so much that people have no access anymore to those. And so, you can't have that with water, right?

So over the last couple of years people have been out in the streets. And community by community, really, going out, and a common protest tactic is to shut down a street and demand access to water, to demand that it not be decentralized or privatized, or that there even be water. People pay water bills right now, and water comes out one hour a day in their taps, or one day a week or two days as a week, so people have been doing this for the last couple of years.

What was different on July 2 is that we're getting a lot closer to the government pushing forward this general water law that would privatize the currently public water system. So people were out there defending their right to water, defending, trying to stop the announcement of this first step in decentralization.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain the response of the state, of the police, and who the people are who have been arrested.

KRISTA HANSON: So on July 2, the people that went out were the community that lives there in Suchitoto, this fairly rural community, as well as people who are involved nationally in this rural development organization, CRIPDES, the local water union, FMLN representatives. They were all out there trying to stop the announcement of the privatization or what -- the government knows they can't call it “privatization,” so President Saca was there to announce “decentralization,” which, of course, is the first step.

So people were protesting. They were protesting in the street, you know, with signs saying, you know, “Water is a human right.” And the police went in in full, full force, as you were saying, full riot gear, rubber bullets, shooting rubber bullets at close range, shooting tear gas at kids, at old people. And then, actually, four of the people who were arrested were actually in a car a few miles away, driving to the protest. And there's video of this that was shown in court, and it's on our webpage, the CISPES webpage, if people want to see it. And you can really see the police dragging people out of their car who were on their way to the protest. And those are the people that they arrested and are currently charging with terrorism.

AMY GOODMAN: With terrorism.

KRISTA HANSON: They are being charged with terrorism for attempting to go to a peaceful protest against the privatization of water. It's really terrifying, because, as you said, it is exported from the United States. I mean, when this law was passed -- it's not a coincidence, just stepping back a little bit, that CAFTA passed -- CAFTA was implemented, excuse me, in March of 2006. It was September of 2006, last fall, when the rightwing government passed this law called the Antiterrorism Law that would define broadly, broadly define things like occupying a public road as terrorism and allow people to be imprisoned for up to sixty years, which is what these people from Suchitoto are facing. Not coincidentally, the US was behind the passing -- the US government was behind the passage of CAFTA, pushed really hard to get it implemented, because even after it passed, there was resistance. And then in September the US ambassador in El Salvador congratulated the Salvadoran government for passing that law and said, you know, “This is proof that we're partners in the war on terrorism.” So that's the law.

And this is really one of the first times that this law is being used, and it’s being used, not coincidentally, not against any terrorists, but against peaceful protesters. And so, people see this as really precedent-setting, this case that's going to come before the courts in September, of seeing whether or not the government really will move forward in imprisoning people and whether or not they actually -- you know, they're declared guilty of -- you know, supposedly of terrorism. Everyone is really clear that this is about scaring people out of protesting and criminalizing protest to the extent that people are afraid to go out and defend their right to something that's so clearly a human right.

AMY GOODMAN: CAFTA stands for Central American Free Trade Agreement. We only have thirty seconds, but, Krista, what does this have to do with the World Bank? How is the World Bank identified with this so-called “decentralization” program?

KRISTA HANSON: The World Bank gave the loan in 1998 that first pushed decentralization and brought in the element of private corporations having a say in this. And maybe just to conclude, also I think that because the World Bank is a part of this, because the US government is pushing this, that's why as solidarity we're so concerned about accompanying people out there. And the US government is going to continue to be involved through their major elections in 2009 in El Salvador. Whether it's the Democrats or the Republicans in power here, they need to maintain their ally, this rightwing government in El Salvador that's going to push privatization, push the neoliberal model, through repressive policing, through calling protest terrorism and criminal acts.

AMY GOODMAN: We're going to have to leave it there. Krista, I want to thank you very much for being with us.

KRISTA HANSON: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Krista Hanson, program director of CISPES, the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, and Gigi Kellett with the Corporate Accountability International, both speaking to us from Boston. Corporate Accountability International is the incarnation of Infact. Link to the video of the Salvador protest.

Which Came First, Poverty or Crime?

Kevin Drum writes:

IMMIGRATION: NOT THE SOURCE OF ALL OUR PROBLEMS AFTER ALL....Some new data on the immigration front:

A study released Tuesday by the Public Policy Institute of California found that immigrants who arrived in the state between 1990 and 2004 increased wages for native workers by an average 4%.

UC Davis economist Giovanni Peri, who conducted the study, said the benefits were shared by all native-born workers, from high school dropouts to college graduates....

Another study released Monday by the Washington-based Immigration Policy Center showed that immigrant men ages 18 to 39 had an incarceration rate five times lower than native-born citizens in every ethnic group examined. Among men of Mexican descent, for instance, 0.7% of those foreign-born were incarcerated compared to 5.9% of native-born, according to the study, co-written by UC Irvine sociologist Ruben G. Rumbaut.

So are these studies legit? I can't say for sure, but the objections offered up by the immigration hawks at the Center for Immigration Studies were so transparently lame that it suggests they don't actually have any credible criticisms of the methodology. They just don't like the results. But perhaps they'll be able to come up with something better after they've cogitated on the matter for while.

Does anybody here live in an area that could use more people?

Is your neighborhood under-populated? Are there not enough cracker-box, particle-board subdivisions mushrooming up in your open space? Could your roads use more traffic? How about noise? Do you need more car alarms, more subwoofer base response from your neighbors' stereos, perhaps a few more basketball hoops in your neighbors' driveways? Are you not standing on line long enough at the supermarket checkout?

How long did it take you to get your current job? What kind of competition were you up against? If you lost your job, how long would it take you to get another?

In IT, Democrats are all too happy to work with Republicans on making it easier for people like Bill Gates to import workers to compete with you. Let's talk turkey - to replace you. Come to think of it, most Democrats in Congress are happy to work with Republicans on legislation like that for any industry. As long as that industry makes substantial contributions to their campaign war chests.

The immigrants coming to the U.S. come here for economic opportunity, opportunity that is fast disappearing for Americans who are already here. If the economic outlook evened out worldwide, like if the IMF's and World Bank's policies were more "citizen friendly," nobody would leave their homeland. If we remain on this current path, there will come a day when we (and our children, grandchildren) will have to leave the U.S. to find work if we and they want to do something other than service jobs for low wages.

American citizens are, again, not dealing with any of the real problems facing us. We're letting politicians and corporations control the subjects of debate. We're going into another election cycle talking about issues like a security policy that will make us more insecure. When are we going to stop reacting, talking on their terms, and start discussing alternatives that will deliver real change, real security and equity for us all?