He had cut his political teeth as interior minister in the government of Colonel Julio A

He had cut his political teeth as interior minister in the government of Colonel Julio A. But it was not until 1992 that these were resolved – largely in Honduras’s favour, as it turned out – by a ruling of the World Court in The Hague. The 233-mile boundary has still not been fully demarcated to this day.Fidel S?hez Hern?ez had been elected President in 1967, as candidate of the conservative Party of National Conciliation (PCN), which enjoyed the backing of the armed forces, the eternal arbiters of Salvadorean politics. This was the time of the Apollo moon landing, and S?hez Hern?ez, who had a sharp eye for publicity, came up with the slogan: “How is it that man can walk on the surface of the moon, but a Salvadorean cannot walk safely down a street in Honduras?”His government was also anxious to settle a number of long-running border disputes.

His successful campaign was only halted when the Washington-based Organisation of American States intervened and prevailed upon him to withdraw his forces, after less than two weeks – in El Salvador the conflict is usually known as the “100-hour war”.The Salvadoreans argued that the invasion was justified by discrimination against thousands of their compatriots, who had emigrated from their overcrowded country to Honduras in search of land and work. Fidel S?hez Hern?ez, soldier and politician: born El Divisadero, El Salvador 7 July 1917; President of El Salvador 1967-72; married Marina Uriarte (two sons, two daughters); died San Salvador 28 February 2003.
General Fidel S?hez Hern?ez was President of El Salvador during the brief “football war” with neighbouring Honduras in 1969, which was touched off by rioting in the wake of a controversial World Cup qualifying match.On 14 June 1969, S?hez Hern?ez ordered Salvadorean troops to cross the border. GENERAL FIDEL S?hez Hern?ez was President of El Salvador during the brief “football war” with neighbouring Honduras in 1969, which was touched off by rioting in the wake of a controversial World Cup qualifying match. It will report by October and was said by a Brown ally yesterday to be more important than the public had realised.Charles Clarke, the Secretary of State for Education, is taking an interest in the review and is also keen to ensure fundamental reforms to the way universities are run.The impact of the Government’s public-sector reforms was called into question yesterday after figures suggested that most of the extra money was being soaked up by higher salaries and extra staff.. Although the rises are due to last until 2006, the Treasury will review all government spending again next year, and will take universities’ performance into account.The Chancellor believes outdated practices act as a barrier to working closer with business and wants a “more responsive” approach to boost innovation and economic growth.The review of universities’ links with business is being led by Richard Lambert, a former editor of the Financial Times soon to join the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. Mr Brown has also clashed with them over his determination to ensure they widen access to students from working-class families, and is more sceptical than Tony Blair that higher education faces a funding crisis.Mr Brown is worried that a 6 per cent a year increase in real terms in state funding for universities will be soaked up in higher pay or channelled into research.

Universities are already complaining that they lack the resources to meet the Government’s targets for increasing the number of school leavers who go into further education. Its terms of reference have been widened and it will now “ask business for its views on the present governance, management and leadership arrangements of higher education institutions”.The move threatens to open a new rift between the Government and vice-chancellors, who guard their independence fiercely. The ingenuity with which the conclusion of one week’s show has been inextricably welded to the following week may yet develop a devoted following – but to my mind nothing can conceal the fact that it’s a minger.. It was a Hitchcock moment, there to remind us just who was boss, but Channel 4 executives could be forgiven for wondering whether they have signed up for a thriller or a horror show. And then, before next week’s winner was chosen, there was just time for a spot of family embarrassment in a section called “Parents on Parade”. A rehearsal show had furnished Jo and Simon, who briefly filled us in on their acquisitive bender and then waited anxiously to discover whether the phone-in voters would deprive them of the sports cars and designer clothes. Her humiliation was compounded by a mass choral singing of Carly Simon’s “You’re So Vain” as she left the stage.The producers had primed the pump for the central element of the programme, in which the overall winner has just seven days to spend £100,000 with a mate of her choice from the opposing team, returning the following week to learn whether the great British public will allow them to keep the loot.

Craig – who had been voted 6th best looking boy from the group – won a holiday for two for his confidence in his own good looks. Less happily, a woman went home empty-handed and absorbing the knowledge that nobody in the studio fancied her nearly as much as she fancied herself. “Babe or Minger” involves members of the studio audience attempting to predict whether their fellow hysterics find them attractive or not. Is this a brilliant pastiche of game-show host smarm or – a slightly unnerving thought this – the genuine article?The games themselves look as if they have been designed for people who would find an 18-30 holiday intellectually taxing. You get Andy Williams and Seventies disco, you get frugging dancers and a Minnie-Mouse voiced game show hostess, and you get Vernon Kay – a square-jawed, skwurr-vowelled presenter whose style sits uneasily between sincerity and knowing parody. His solution seems to have been to copy a bit of everything and package the whole thing as an exercise in Austin Powers retro-styling.