include an expression of sympathy with the US people and government and the adherence to the thesis that the current situation (…) should be handled in such a way that preserves and increases tolerance and the good relationship among different cultures, religions, ethnic groups and nations’.

In connection with the eventual military actions that the United States may undertake in their campaign against the so-called ‘first war of the XXI century’ as President Bush put it, Central Americans were deliberately ambiguous: they underscored their ‘strong resolve to cooperate and support the adoption and implementation of measures aimed at punishing those responsible’ but also ‘(…) in line with the rules of international law’. To that end and in order to implement the measures announced, the Presidents summoned meetings of the Security Council, National Police Directors and Central American Armed Forces Conference (CEFAC).

Beyond the rhetoric symbolism of this declaration in view of the ruthless terrorist attacks in New York and Washington D.C., the statements of Central American presidents make two ominous references that should not go unnoticed. First, an imprecise call for ‘all political organizations holding ties with terrorist networks to break them up immediately. These ties –heads of government add- seek to legitimize international terrorism and may lead to use Central American terrorism as operating bases for terrorist acts’. Second, it is a ‘strong condemnation’ (…) to any link among groups or sectors in the Central American region to international terrorism’.

Such a language seems to be targeted at organizations that in the ‘80s were up in arms against the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala or that as was the case of Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional (FSLN) ruled Nicaragua. At that time, those groups were accused of holding ties with terrorist organizations such as ETA, IRA, FARC or al-Fatah as well as counties that allegedly harbored those groups such as Sudan, Libya and North Korea among others.

The problem is currently the old Central American insurgents and the FSLN have turned into vigorous political parties which in at least two cases –El Salvador and Nicaragua- could reach power in the short term. In view of this situation, the presidential statements prove worrying at best and threatening at worse. As expected, they underscore the danger to use the term ‘terrorism’ with ulterior purposes that do not favor the cause against their action in the world. Hence the urgency to shorten definitions and spell out the scope of this ‘war’. It must be done fast and correctly.