The Honduran Crisis could be a Latin American Yalta.

The Honduran Crisis could be a Latin American Yalta.

By Luis Fleischman. *

 

As the Honduran crisis is still unresolved and attempts at mediation continue, the case has presented an interesting challenge whose outcome could be crucial for the future of the region and the United States.

 

For the time being Costa Rican President, Oscar Arias, is trying (so far unsuccessfully) to mediate between the current President of Honduras, Roberto Micheletti, and ousted Honduran President, Manuel Zelaya. The Obama Administration did the right thing by encouraging President Arias’s intervention as well as opposing Zelaya’s demand that a deadline be set for his return to power.

 

Yet, the Obama Administration, in principle, has supported the return of Zelaya to power as part of any settlement. This point requires further analysis because we are not merely dealing with an internal Honduran problem but also with a problem that has far reaching regional and international implications.    

 

Zelaya was, indeed, democratically elected. In his attempt to pursue a constitutional reform via referendum he engaged in a violation of the constitution as it was sanctioned by the Honduran Supreme Court and the national Congress. The military intervened to prevent Zelaya from carrying out unconstitutional measures. Because that action involved a military intervention, it prompted negative reactions in the U.S., Latin America and Europe.  

 

The action by the Honduran military was aimed at preventing Zelaya from doing what is being done in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador: that is strengthening the prerogatives of the executive power via a constitutional reform and using that as a stepping stone towards dictatorship.

 

In order to understand the severity of Zelaya’s actions, we have to imagine a situation where President Barack Obama tries to pass legislation on health care, immigration, or any other policy. For Obama to expect full support in Congress or even full support in the Democratic Party would be unrealistic. Yet President Obama would be so eager to pass legislation or implement policy in all these areas, that instead of negotiating with Congress, he appeals to popular referendums taking advantage of his current popularity. Thus, because Obama is annoyed at Congressional resistance and because he is aware of his popularity, he calls for a constitutional reform via a popular referendum that approves a constitution that increases the power of the President to carry out a “socially just policy”.  Would not America be outraged at such an action? That is exactly what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela, what Evo Morales did in Bolivia, what Rafael Correa did in Ecuador and what Zelaya tried to do in Honduras. 

 

Zelaya’s actions also raise a serious suspicion regarding his dealings with Hugo Chavez.  In other words, it sounds like in exchange for economic support and other types of agreements beneficial to Honduras, President Zelaya seems to have compromised his country’s constitution and its democracy. This adds an element of corruption to a man who was elected as head of the liberal party, a party that holds conservative economic views, quite the opposite of views held by Chavez.  Certainly leaders can change their minds about certain things.  But how can we explain Zelaya’s quick ideological turn around? One thing is to accept Venezuelan largess but another thing is to move his country into a Chavista sphere of influence by showing disdain and undermining state institutions. This raises eyebrows as to whether Zelaya’s move could have been part of an unwritten agreement between him and Chavez. If this is the case we are talking about a major case of political prostitution where a whole country is put up for sale by a single man. If this is the case, Zelaya needs to be investigated on grounds of corruption.

 

If the Obama Administration insists on the principle that any settlement should return Mr. Zelaya to power we may be facing a case of a Latin American Yalta.

 

The Yalta conference that took place early in 1945 between U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, paved the way for the subjugation of Poland and later countries such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia into the Soviet sphere of influence.   At the time of the Yalta conference, the Soviets had the advantage of having their troops in the heart of Europe. This card was strongly used by Stalin to get strategic and political advantages from Roosevelt and Churchill in the negotiations.

 

In the current Latin American situation, Chavez has an advantage comparable with Stalin’s during Yalta. Chavez is a) generous oil producer and distributor of wealth among Latin American countries b) Chavez has integrated into his sphere of influence countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and probably El Salvador and Paraguay plus a few small Caribbean nations. c) In addition, populist governments such as Argentina support Chavez, and social democracies such as Brazil, Chile and Uruguay have displayed indifference towards the Chavista phenomenon or have been apologists of the dictator.  D) The organization of American States (OAS) under the leadership of Jose Miguel Insulza has de-facto empowered Chavez by conspicuously ignoring his anti-democratic steps against the rule of law, the political opposition, and the media and against his own interference in the internal affairs of other countries in an attempt to influence their political outcomes.   In other words, losing the battle in Honduras means a big victory for Chavez and the spread of dictatorship in Latin America.

 

At the minimum the Obama Administration needs to do no harm in this situation. By isolating Honduras and threatening to stop all financial aid, we are inadvertently strengthening the Chavista countries while discouraging Honduran resistance to dictatorship.

 

The best solution would be to move forward with the scheduled November elections without restoring Zelaya.  However, if the Administration’s idea is to restore Zelaya in order not to be an accomplice to a coup d’état, it needs to be done in a certain way. If restored, Zelaya should face impeachment over his constitutional violations and also undergo an investigation as to how exactly his dealings with Chavez are related to his project of constitutional reform.

 

These phenomena of “elected dictatorships” need to be exposed for what they are and countries need to find legal mechanisms of protection against them.  Honduras has taken a stand against dictatorship and provided us with a “wake up” call.

*Dr. Luis Fleischman is Senior Advisor for the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington D.C.

 

The Bolivarian Revolution Zeroing in on Peru.

The Bolivarian Revolution Zeroing in on Peru.

By Nicole M. Ferrand. *

 

Today, Peru is one of the strongest economies in Latin America. In 2007, the Peruvian economy grew 9% and continued at that rate through 2008, only slowing in 2009 due to the world economic crisis. However, it remains structurally strong with a gross domestic product that surged 9.84% in 2008; it’s fastest pace since 1994. In addition to achieving economic growth, Peru has also successfully implemented market friendly policies, and increased property rights while recently ratifying a mutually beneficial Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Economists agree that things are looking up for Peru. Unfortunately, this doesn’t sit well with some; in particular Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez who has targeted countries that develop peacefully because their success proves to the world and the majority of Venezuelans that his policies are completely misguided.

In June 2009, Peru was rocked by violent confrontations between normally peaceful indigenous groups in the city of Bagua and local police. Bagua is a province of the Amazonas region, which is located in the north and central part of the department of Amazonas, rich in oil and gas resources.

 

Peru has started to restructure their economy under a 2006 free trade deal with the U.S. and key is a focus on property rights and titling of property, which is essential for capital formation. Earlier this year, President Alan Garcia used his executive authority to give title to land in the north of Peru and government officials spoke with indigenous people there, 400,000 of whom still live in Peru’s Amazon. In January of 2009, Garcia gave them title to 12.4 million hectares of land and another 15 million hectares were set aside for ecological sanctuaries.[1]

 

In an unprecedented move, native groups, led by indigenous leader Alberto Pizango, started to violently demonstrate to “reclaim” more than half of the land that was to be kept as sanctuary. Pizango, 43, a member of the Shawi-Campu Piavi tribe of the Loreto region had worked as a teacher in Yurimaguas in the Loreto region until he was elected president of Aidesep, in December 14, 2008. Aidesep is the Association for the Development of the Peruvian Jungle (Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana), which in reality is a radical proponent of “indigenous rights” and a vicious opponent of free market policies.[2] Ideologically, Aidesep is aligned with the Peruvian Communist Party, and former presidential candidate, radical leftist Ollanta Humala, Chavez’s handpicked candidate for the presidency of Peru.

 

These demonstrations were accompanied by propaganda that blamed the Garcia regime for, according to them, “robbing land and refusing to talk.” The natives appeared defiant on TV with spears and feathers while leftist organizations and the mainstream media began to portray Peru as an oppressive state that doesn't deserve free trade because it exploits its population.

 

During this time, a major highway in Bagua had been blocked for fifty-five days by approximately five thousand indigenous protesters. Many analysts agreed that the tactics used by these people looked eerily similar to the ones used by radicalized indigenous protesters in Bolivia in recent years.[3] In such demonstrations, roadblocks are basically used to isolate cities by halting shipments of food, medicine and energy, as well as trade, to make the government give concessions to avoid major confrontations. Garcia had sought to avoid conflict by engaging Aidesep in dialogue for more than five weeks, seeking agreements to end the road and river blockades. But its leader, Pizango, would not cooperate and it was clear from the start that he was looking for a violent row with the government to gain supporters, delegitimize the government and appear as a victim of the “inhuman” free trade agreement signed with the United States. The native leader had a clear agenda with the mindset to cause unrest and plenty of cash to mobilize people. Insiders close to Pizango said from the beginning that he was operating under Hugo Chavez’s orders, which had provided him and his followers with financing, promising them a safe haven just in case things went south. On the other hand, if successful, Pizango and Aidesep would achieve great riches, paving the way for Ollanta Humala to become president, and converting Hugo Chavez into the supreme leader of yet another Latin American nation, in addition to Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

 

On June 4^th, the local police received orders to end the blockade of the Belaúnde Terry highway, one of the country’s principal land routes for the transport of passengers and goods, which passes through Bagua. Unfortunately, the officers in charge of the operation, under-estimated the violent protesters. Only three hundred police officials were deployed without adequate anti-riot gear and when they tried to clear the highway on June 5, they were attacked by several thousand protesters, many of whom were armed. A total of thirty-three people died including twenty-four unarmed police officers whose throats were brutally cut by the natives.[4] Only nine indigenous protesters were killed but only after they clashed with their own forces who were members of Aidesep.

 

Police investigations indicate that Pizango ordered armed gunmen to attack the police and that he personally approved the executions of the police officials. The Peruvian government has already charged Pizango with homicide[5] but the native leader has been granted asylum by Nicaragua’s President, Daniel Ortega. Pizango now lives comfortably in Managua and openly gives speeches promoting Chavez’s cause while thousands of Peruvians yell for his return.

 

President Alan Garcia said the government will continue seeking dialogue with the country’s indigenous groups while also giving Peru’s national police commanders orders to “dialogue faster and act immediately” when confronted with road blockades and other indigenous protests which disrupt the free transit of people and goods. Interestingly, Garcia blamed the violence in Bagua on “external” forces, which are competing with Peru’s oil and gas resources. Clearly, he was referring to Venezuela and Bolivia.

 

There is mounting evidence that the Chavez regime provides financial support to Pizango and Aidesep. Venezuelan funds seem to be flowing to the protesters through Ollanta Humala and the ALBA houses, grass roots support centers named after Chavez’s alternative trading bloc, known as the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. The Peruvian congress is actively working on closing these “medical centers” and those lines of financing. Peruvian newspapers claim that radical Bolivian indigenous militants supported by Evo Morales are also working with radical Peruvian indigenous groups including Pizango’s group. These people are extremely poor, so you have to ask how they can afford to travel large distances, camp, obtain weapons and feed themselves for weeks at a time.

 

Separately, Chavez and Morales hold other grudges with the Garcia regime when it gave asylum to top Venezuelan dissidents, including Manuel Rosales, who ran against Chavez for president in 2006, and Carlos Ortega, the oil workers union boss who crossed Chavez. More recently, Peruvian writer, Mario Vargas Llosa, delivered a highly critical and apparently quite effective speech that ridiculed Chavez at a conference in Caracas. With regards to Bolivia, Peru granted political asylum to three former Bolivian cabinet officials accused of involvement in the killing of sixty-three demonstrators in the Andean city of El Alto in 2003 during the Sanchez de Lozada administration.[6]

 

In fact, local authorities have known for some time that Pizango and Aidesep are associated with the Congreso Bolivariano de los Pueblos (CBP), which was created in 2003 by Chavez to finance and promote his Bolivarian revolution together with the ALBA houses. The CBP is a consortium of indigenous groups in various Latin American countries that embraces a radical strategy and openly supports the idea that if the revolution cannot achieve power peacefully and democratically, it will trigger social, economic and political unrest.[7] To accomplish such a goal, they portray themselves as oppressed, and engaged in class warfare between the poor and the “mean imperialist elites,” lead by the “Satan” U.S.

 

Bolivia initially denied any involvement with the violence in Bagua, but President Morales finally said he supported Pizango’s indigenous movement. “It’s not possible that most reviled (people) in Latin American history should be humiliated as we have just seen,” Morales declared, adding that the “Indigenous movement of Latin America is a great defender of the planet Earth, of the environment, and that is why the struggles to defend equality and social justice will continue.” In addition the Bolivian President has called the government crackdown “genocide,” stating that “free trade agreements break up harmonious human relationships with nature; they illegally sell natural resources and national cultures; they privatize basic services; they try to patent life itself.”[8] Peru responded to the genocide comment by recalling its ambassador to Bolivia for consultation. The government has stated that there is no excuse for Morales to refer to the Bagua incident as “genocide” since a United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and the fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples ratified this past week that no genocide had occurred. The Garcia government sees the Morales administration as meddling in Peruvian sovereignty and has even publicly implied that Bolivia has manipulated the Peruvian indigenous groups in order to stir them to action. Separately, Bolivian Justice Minister, Celima Torrico, accused the Garcia government in Peru of unleashing a “bloody repression” against the country’s indigenous population.

 

For her part, Venezuela’s Minister of Indigenous Peoples, Nicia Maldonado, launched a furious public tirade against Garcia, accusing him of perpetrating “genocide…a terrorist act,” and “confirming (he) is a fascist.” “Unlike the Chavez government,” she added, Garcia has confirmed he “hates the people, hates the poor, hates the indigenous tribes” of Peru. “We absolutely and categorically condemn this genocide against our brothers of the Peruvian Amazon jungle,” Maldonado continued. She also said, without offering any proof, that Peruvian police had burned some bodies and thrown others into rivers in order to obscure the number of people killed.[9] By publicly embracing Pizango’s cause, they have given the indigenous leader international political recognition, which makes him seem more influential in Peru than he actually is.

 

After these incidents, the Garcia administration was forced to repeal the two decrees that caused the crisis in the first place. President Garcia even admitted that it was a mistake not to consult the heads of the indigenous groups prior to implementing the decrees. This may signify that the political elite in Peru is coming to terms with the fact that Peruvian indigenous groups are much better organized now than they were in the past.

 

The problem with these protests and what has the government confused is that, according to the polls, the overwhelming majority of Peruvians, over 80%, including a substantial percentage of its indigenous people support sustained economic development of the country’s abundant energy and mineral resources. So it is clear that someone is manipulating these people with the sole purpose of crippling the economy and destroying Garcia’s popularity while setting up a radical like Ollanta Humala for election as president in 2011. Peru would then be the next Marxist revolutionary and anti – American regime of the Chavez – Morales – Ortega – Correa axis. This would leave Colombia’s Alvaro Uribe almost alone at the mercy of the FARC.  

 

The implications of the conflict in Bagua are ominous for Peru and for the stability of the region. Garcia faces powerful enemies who have instigated violence inside the country; especially Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. In addition, he has to contend with powerful organizations dedicated exclusively to “protecting the environment at all costs” and preserving, intact, the world’s remaining indigenous cultures and tribal societies. A case in point is the NGO, Amazon Watch, infamous for supporting the harassment of Chevron in Ecuador and paying protesters and launching a new campaign against “Big Oil.” Peru has the world’s third largest tropical rain forests, after Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Deforestation rates in Peru are significantly lower than in Brazil, Ecuador or Colombia and the Andean nation has large reserves of oil, gas and minerals in its rain forests. But these resources remain untapped, and the forces against Garcia want to make sure they remain unexploited – at least until the radicals take power in Peru.[10]

 

Unfortunately, not many are at Mr. Garcia’s side since Chavez has transformed the Organization of American States (OAS) into his echo chamber. By generously giving away oil to companies such as PetroCaribe and many nations represented in the OAS, Chavez has brought them around to his revolutionary cause. So far the Obama Administration treats Chavez as a nuisance to be left alone but not challenged or reckoned with in any substantial way. Brazil’s President Lula da Silva avoids direct confrontation with Chavez but in regional disputes always sides with the Chavista countries, as does Argentina. Looking South, Chile’s Michele Bachelet is unlikely to back Garcia in a diplomatic standoff with Chavez and Morales since OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza is Chilean and has sat placidly as Chavez has devoured democracy in his own country.  Chilean diplomacy will stay away as long as its territory is left alone.

 

It is clear that President Garcia faces increasing pressure from Venezuela and Bolivia and that subversive groups are likely to increase its operations inside the country to intensify the conflict and destabilize the regime. Colombia and Brazil would be wise to cooperate on the intelligence front to protect their territories from this violence.

 

The Bagua attacks could provide an opportunity for Mr. Garcia to balance strong economic growth with social programs, even in the most remotes areas. The goal should be to stop fostering conditions for the emergence of radicals who only want violence and conflict with the current government.

 

Radicals in the Peruvian Congress from the Nationalist Party wanted to impeach Prime Minister Yehude Simon and Interior Minister Mercedes Cabanillas for the clashes, placing the Garcia regime in a precarious position to govern; fortunately sanity prevailed: Congress gave them a vote of confidence and it appears that democracy still has a chance in Peru. But the situation is far from over and the upcoming months will be vital for the stability of Latin America.

 

*Nicole M. Ferrand is the editor of “The Americas Report” of the Menges Hemispheric Security Project. She is a graduate of Columbia University in Economics and Political Science with a background in Law from Peruvian University, UNIFE and in Corporate Finance from Georgetown University.

---

[1] Chavez's War On Free Trade In Peru. Investor’s Business Daily. June 9, 2009.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Miembros de Sendero y el MRTA se infiltraron en las protestas del Cusco. June 24, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Gobierno asegura que policías en Bagua fueron asesinados a sangre fría. June 6, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[6] Investor’s Business Daily – Ibid.

[7] Perú: Gobierno denuncia que los indígenas traman un golpe de Estado. June 8, 2009. Infolatam.

[8] Evo Morales vuelve a criticar: "Lo que pasó en Perú es el genocidio del TLC." July 13, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[9] Ministra Venezolana: Hubo un genocidio en Perú en protestas de nativos. June 8, 2009. Radio Programas del Peru.

[10] Los Movimientos Populares Indígenas en la encrucijada. July 1, 2009. Indymedia.

 

The Bolivarian Revolution Zeroing in on Peru.

The Bolivarian Revolution Zeroing in on Peru.

By Nicole M. Ferrand. *

 

Today, Peru is one of the strongest economies in Latin America. In 2007, the Peruvian economy grew 9% and continued at that rate through 2008, only slowing in 2009 due to the world economic crisis. However, it remains structurally strong with a gross domestic product that surged 9.84% in 2008; it’s fastest pace since 1994. In addition to achieving economic growth, Peru has also successfully implemented market friendly policies, and increased property rights while recently ratifying a mutually beneficial Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Economists agree that things are looking up for Peru. Unfortunately, this doesn’t sit well with some; in particular Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez who has targeted countries that develop peacefully because their success proves to the world and the majority of Venezuelans that his policies are completely misguided.

In June 2009, Peru was rocked by violent confrontations between normally peaceful indigenous groups in the city of Bagua and local police. Bagua is a province of the Amazonas region, which is located in the north and central part of the department of Amazonas, rich in oil and gas resources.

 

Peru has started to restructure their economy under a 2006 free trade deal with the U.S. and key is a focus on property rights and titling of property, which is essential for capital formation. Earlier this year, President Alan Garcia used his executive authority to give title to land in the north of Peru and government officials spoke with indigenous people there, 400,000 of whom still live in Peru’s Amazon. In January of 2009, Garcia gave them title to 12.4 million hectares of land and another 15 million hectares were set aside for ecological sanctuaries.[1]

 

In an unprecedented move, native groups, led by indigenous leader Alberto Pizango, started to violently demonstrate to “reclaim” more than half of the land that was to be kept as sanctuary. Pizango, 43, a member of the Shawi-Campu Piavi tribe of the Loreto region had worked as a teacher in Yurimaguas in the Loreto region until he was elected president of Aidesep, in December 14, 2008. Aidesep is the Association for the Development of the Peruvian Jungle (Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana), which in reality is a radical proponent of “indigenous rights” and a vicious opponent of free market policies.[2] Ideologically, Aidesep is aligned with the Peruvian Communist Party, and former presidential candidate, radical leftist Ollanta Humala, Chavez’s handpicked candidate for the presidency of Peru.

 

These demonstrations were accompanied by propaganda that blamed the Garcia regime for, according to them, “robbing land and refusing to talk.” The natives appeared defiant on TV with spears and feathers while leftist organizations and the mainstream media began to portray Peru as an oppressive state that doesn't deserve free trade because it exploits its population.

 

During this time, a major highway in Bagua had been blocked for fifty-five days by approximately five thousand indigenous protesters. Many analysts agreed that the tactics used by these people looked eerily similar to the ones used by radicalized indigenous protesters in Bolivia in recent years.[3] In such demonstrations, roadblocks are basically used to isolate cities by halting shipments of food, medicine and energy, as well as trade, to make the government give concessions to avoid major confrontations. Garcia had sought to avoid conflict by engaging Aidesep in dialogue for more than five weeks, seeking agreements to end the road and river blockades. But its leader, Pizango, would not cooperate and it was clear from the start that he was looking for a violent row with the government to gain supporters, delegitimize the government and appear as a victim of the “inhuman” free trade agreement signed with the United States. The native leader had a clear agenda with the mindset to cause unrest and plenty of cash to mobilize people. Insiders close to Pizango said from the beginning that he was operating under Hugo Chavez’s orders, which had provided him and his followers with financing, promising them a safe haven just in case things went south. On the other hand, if successful, Pizango and Aidesep would achieve great riches, paving the way for Ollanta Humala to become president, and converting Hugo Chavez into the supreme leader of yet another Latin American nation, in addition to Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

 

On June 4^th, the local police received orders to end the blockade of the Belaúnde Terry highway, one of the country’s principal land routes for the transport of passengers and goods, which passes through Bagua. Unfortunately, the officers in charge of the operation, under-estimated the violent protesters. Only three hundred police officials were deployed without adequate anti-riot gear and when they tried to clear the highway on June 5, they were attacked by several thousand protesters, many of whom were armed. A total of thirty-three people died including twenty-four unarmed police officers whose throats were brutally cut by the natives.[4] Only nine indigenous protesters were killed but only after they clashed with their own forces who were members of Aidesep.

 

Police investigations indicate that Pizango ordered armed gunmen to attack the police and that he personally approved the executions of the police officials. The Peruvian government has already charged Pizango with homicide[5] but the native leader has been granted asylum by Nicaragua’s President, Daniel Ortega. Pizango now lives comfortably in Managua and openly gives speeches promoting Chavez’s cause while thousands of Peruvians yell for his return.

 

President Alan Garcia said the government will continue seeking dialogue with the country’s indigenous groups while also giving Peru’s national police commanders orders to “dialogue faster and act immediately” when confronted with road blockades and other indigenous protests which disrupt the free transit of people and goods. Interestingly, Garcia blamed the violence in Bagua on “external” forces, which are competing with Peru’s oil and gas resources. Clearly, he was referring to Venezuela and Bolivia.

 

There is mounting evidence that the Chavez regime provides financial support to Pizango and Aidesep. Venezuelan funds seem to be flowing to the protesters through Ollanta Humala and the ALBA houses, grass roots support centers named after Chavez’s alternative trading bloc, known as the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. The Peruvian congress is actively working on closing these “medical centers” and those lines of financing. Peruvian newspapers claim that radical Bolivian indigenous militants supported by Evo Morales are also working with radical Peruvian indigenous groups including Pizango’s group. These people are extremely poor, so you have to ask how they can afford to travel large distances, camp, obtain weapons and feed themselves for weeks at a time.

 

Separately, Chavez and Morales hold other grudges with the Garcia regime when it gave asylum to top Venezuelan dissidents, including Manuel Rosales, who ran against Chavez for president in 2006, and Carlos Ortega, the oil workers union boss who crossed Chavez. More recently, Peruvian writer, Mario Vargas Llosa, delivered a highly critical and apparently quite effective speech that ridiculed Chavez at a conference in Caracas. With regards to Bolivia, Peru granted political asylum to three former Bolivian cabinet officials accused of involvement in the killing of sixty-three demonstrators in the Andean city of El Alto in 2003 during the Sanchez de Lozada administration.[6]

 

In fact, local authorities have known for some time that Pizango and Aidesep are associated with the Congreso Bolivariano de los Pueblos (CBP), which was created in 2003 by Chavez to finance and promote his Bolivarian revolution together with the ALBA houses. The CBP is a consortium of indigenous groups in various Latin American countries that embraces a radical strategy and openly supports the idea that if the revolution cannot achieve power peacefully and democratically, it will trigger social, economic and political unrest.[7] To accomplish such a goal, they portray themselves as oppressed, and engaged in class warfare between the poor and the “mean imperialist elites,” lead by the “Satan” U.S.

 

Bolivia initially denied any involvement with the violence in Bagua, but President Morales finally said he supported Pizango’s indigenous movement. “It’s not possible that most reviled (people) in Latin American history should be humiliated as we have just seen,” Morales declared, adding that the “Indigenous movement of Latin America is a great defender of the planet Earth, of the environment, and that is why the struggles to defend equality and social justice will continue.” In addition the Bolivian President has called the government crackdown “genocide,” stating that “free trade agreements break up harmonious human relationships with nature; they illegally sell natural resources and national cultures; they privatize basic services; they try to patent life itself.”[8] Peru responded to the genocide comment by recalling its ambassador to Bolivia for consultation. The government has stated that there is no excuse for Morales to refer to the Bagua incident as “genocide” since a United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and the fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples ratified this past week that no genocide had occurred. The Garcia government sees the Morales administration as meddling in Peruvian sovereignty and has even publicly implied that Bolivia has manipulated the Peruvian indigenous groups in order to stir them to action. Separately, Bolivian Justice Minister, Celima Torrico, accused the Garcia government in Peru of unleashing a “bloody repression” against the country’s indigenous population.

 

For her part, Venezuela’s Minister of Indigenous Peoples, Nicia Maldonado, launched a furious public tirade against Garcia, accusing him of perpetrating “genocide…a terrorist act,” and “confirming (he) is a fascist.” “Unlike the Chavez government,” she added, Garcia has confirmed he “hates the people, hates the poor, hates the indigenous tribes” of Peru. “We absolutely and categorically condemn this genocide against our brothers of the Peruvian Amazon jungle,” Maldonado continued. She also said, without offering any proof, that Peruvian police had burned some bodies and thrown others into rivers in order to obscure the number of people killed.[9] By publicly embracing Pizango’s cause, they have given the indigenous leader international political recognition, which makes him seem more influential in Peru than he actually is.

 

After these incidents, the Garcia administration was forced to repeal the two decrees that caused the crisis in the first place. President Garcia even admitted that it was a mistake not to consult the heads of the indigenous groups prior to implementing the decrees. This may signify that the political elite in Peru is coming to terms with the fact that Peruvian indigenous groups are much better organized now than they were in the past.

 

The problem with these protests and what has the government confused is that, according to the polls, the overwhelming majority of Peruvians, over 80%, including a substantial percentage of its indigenous people support sustained economic development of the country’s abundant energy and mineral resources. So it is clear that someone is manipulating these people with the sole purpose of crippling the economy and destroying Garcia’s popularity while setting up a radical like Ollanta Humala for election as president in 2011. Peru would then be the next Marxist revolutionary and anti – American regime of the Chavez – Morales – Ortega – Correa axis. This would leave Colombia’s Alvaro Uribe almost alone at the mercy of the FARC.  

 

The implications of the conflict in Bagua are ominous for Peru and for the stability of the region. Garcia faces powerful enemies who have instigated violence inside the country; especially Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. In addition, he has to contend with powerful organizations dedicated exclusively to “protecting the environment at all costs” and preserving, intact, the world’s remaining indigenous cultures and tribal societies. A case in point is the NGO, Amazon Watch, infamous for supporting the harassment of Chevron in Ecuador and paying protesters and launching a new campaign against “Big Oil.” Peru has the world’s third largest tropical rain forests, after Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Deforestation rates in Peru are significantly lower than in Brazil, Ecuador or Colombia and the Andean nation has large reserves of oil, gas and minerals in its rain forests. But these resources remain untapped, and the forces against Garcia want to make sure they remain unexploited – at least until the radicals take power in Peru.[10]

 

Unfortunately, not many are at Mr. Garcia’s side since Chavez has transformed the Organization of American States (OAS) into his echo chamber. By generously giving away oil to companies such as PetroCaribe and many nations represented in the OAS, Chavez has brought them around to his revolutionary cause. So far the Obama Administration treats Chavez as a nuisance to be left alone but not challenged or reckoned with in any substantial way. Brazil’s President Lula da Silva avoids direct confrontation with Chavez but in regional disputes always sides with the Chavista countries, as does Argentina. Looking South, Chile’s Michele Bachelet is unlikely to back Garcia in a diplomatic standoff with Chavez and Morales since OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza is Chilean and has sat placidly as Chavez has devoured democracy in his own country.  Chilean diplomacy will stay away as long as its territory is left alone.

 

It is clear that President Garcia faces increasing pressure from Venezuela and Bolivia and that subversive groups are likely to increase its operations inside the country to intensify the conflict and destabilize the regime. Colombia and Brazil would be wise to cooperate on the intelligence front to protect their territories from this violence.

 

The Bagua attacks could provide an opportunity for Mr. Garcia to balance strong economic growth with social programs, even in the most remotes areas. The goal should be to stop fostering conditions for the emergence of radicals who only want violence and conflict with the current government.

 

Radicals in the Peruvian Congress from the Nationalist Party wanted to impeach Prime Minister Yehude Simon and Interior Minister Mercedes Cabanillas for the clashes, placing the Garcia regime in a precarious position to govern; fortunately sanity prevailed: Congress gave them a vote of confidence and it appears that democracy still has a chance in Peru. But the situation is far from over and the upcoming months will be vital for the stability of Latin America.

 

*Nicole M. Ferrand is the editor of “The Americas Report” of the Menges Hemispheric Security Project. She is a graduate of Columbia University in Economics and Political Science with a background in Law from Peruvian University, UNIFE and in Corporate Finance from Georgetown University.

---

[1] Chavez's War On Free Trade In Peru. Investor’s Business Daily. June 9, 2009.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Miembros de Sendero y el MRTA se infiltraron en las protestas del Cusco. June 24, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Gobierno asegura que policías en Bagua fueron asesinados a sangre fría. June 6, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[6] Investor’s Business Daily – Ibid.

[7] Perú: Gobierno denuncia que los indígenas traman un golpe de Estado. June 8, 2009. Infolatam.

[8] Evo Morales vuelve a criticar: "Lo que pasó en Perú es el genocidio del TLC." July 13, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[9] Ministra Venezolana: Hubo un genocidio en Perú en protestas de nativos. June 8, 2009. Radio Programas del Peru.

[10] Los Movimientos Populares Indígenas en la encrucijada. July 1, 2009. Indymedia.

 

Time to Reject All Dictatorship in Latin America.

Time to Reject All Dictatorship in Latin America.

By Luis Fleischman.*

 

The June 28 coup d’état in Honduras that deposed President Manuel Zelaya raised international concern.  Brazilian President Lula Da Silva stated that he will not recognize any other president except Zelaya.  Most countries in Latin America echoed Lula’s sentiment.  President Obama also indicated the inadmissibility of deposing an elected president.

 

Let us face one truth.  Coup d’états no doubt look and sound like the opposite of democracy because in fact they depose an elected president or leader by force.  The traumas of the 1970’s, particularly after the 1973 coup against Chilean president Salvador Allende and the distress caused by a possible U.S. support for the coup as well as U.S. support for all the South American military dictatorships has generated among us a natural rejection for such actions.

 

It is good that the U.S. no longer supports coups and it is good that the U.S. no longer seeks to support them in the future.

Yet, what the U.S. State Department, the Obama Administration and the rest of the Latin American countries have not yet publicly acknowledged is the inadmissibility of creating a dictatorship using democratic practices as means for despotic projects.

Manuel Zelaya was trying to pass a non-binding referendum on the issue of constitutional reform.  Zelaya says the constitution protects a system of government that excludes the poor, but has not specified what changes he will seek.  Yet, he went ahead against a decision by the Supreme Court and by the Honduran Congress to hold the referendum.  The goal of such a referendum, according to Zelaya, himself, was to begin a consultation with the purpose of commencing to move from a “representative democracy to a participatory democracy”.

 

What does this mean?  In very simple words what Zelaya had attempted was to repeat the experiences of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.  The formula is simple: social problems cannot be solved under the current constitution.  A new constitution would eventually provide maximum power to the elected leader.  Congress is useless unless it supports the goal of the president and the goals of the president are to impose social justice from above without congressional debate and with direct support from the people.  Congress, that embodies the mechanism through which debate takes place while taking into consideration a number of interests and groups, is perceived by these reformers as nothing but an obstacle to the goals of those leaders who believe in the absolute rightness of their social and political program.  Therefore, participatory democracy means that the people vote to give full powers to the president to carry out the will of the majority.  Thus, participatory democracy is only the act of voting.  After that there is no more participation because participation is embedded in the will of the president.  In fact, there is not even a need for debate, or discussion.  In other words, this is a dictatorship legitimized by popular vote, a form of tyranny.

 

The Organization of American States under the mediocre leadership of Miguel Insulza backed Zelaya even before the coup took place.  On Friday June 26, the OAS and all the countries backed Zelaya even after the Supreme Court and Congress made a decision not to support a referendum that Zelaya conveyed a few days before. Such a hasty decision to hold a referendum not only reduces the time needed to hold the debate but also the 1982 Honduran constitution states that “any politician who promotes presidential re-election will be barred from public service for 10 years.”

 

Thus, the OAS interfered in the internal affairs of Honduras in favor of a president with a despotic project.  The fact that referendums and elections have taken place in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia is not a reflection of democratic practices but a reflection of the will of dictators to consolidate power via popular referendums while skipping institutional democratic procedure.   

 

Countries in Latin America have always been morally weak and they are getting worse as time goes by.  Brazilian President Lula Da Silva declared, without any foundation, that the recent presidential elections in Iran were fair and there was no fraud.  Lula, who during the Brazilian dictatorship of the 1970’s, wished that the international community would speak against it, showed little sensitivity towards the people of Iran who courageously confronted a highly repressive theocracy.  Likewise, he signed, along with Arab countries a joint- resolution defending the genocidal policies of the government of Sudan against the people of Darfur.  Lula rejoiced over the economic crisis of the Western countries stating that the recession was caused by “blond white people” and has shown that he is unable to move beyond the narrow-minded and obsolete anti-imperialism of the third world.  Additionally, his tolerance and sometimes promotion of Hugo Chavez is worrisome. It reflects his inability to lead a modernizing, emerging country like Brazil and less so to be a reliable regional leader. 

 

Furthermore, Latin American countries have lobbied for Cuba’s admission into the OAS while ignoring the demolition of democracy at the hands of Hugo Chavez who: destroyed congress; subjugated the courts and the national electoral council to presidential prerogatives; restricted freedom of the press and persecuted press institutions that criticized him; who took over local governments that were not part of his party or movement; persecuted and forced into exile political opponents; and now is also using common criminals to assassinate union leaders who “dare” to act  independently of his will. The democratic charter of the OAS does not seem to be worthy of the paper it is written on. Latin American leaders have destroyed it.

 

The moral character of most of today’s Latin American leaders is deplorable.  President Barack Obama cannot manage policy in this continent by pleasing the prevailing moral lightweight approach in Latin America. Furthermore, the model that President Zelaya pursues is usually followed by a foreign and regional policy that includes alliances with Iran, links to drug cartels and a systematic policy aimed at expelling U.S. influence in the region.  In fact, as I write these lines reports have emerged that President Zelaya may have allowed tons of cocaine to be flown into Honduras on its way to the United States, allegedly to circumvent Mexico’s government crack down on cartels. According to the allegations the shipments were carried by Venezuelan planes.

 

If President Obama is to deplore the coup in Honduras, he must do the same with the Chavez-inspired new dictatorships. He will also have to use his influence to help the continent move away from the anti-democratic practices promoted by Hugo Chavez and his allies.  To date, the President has espoused a foreign policy that is basically a public relations policy with needless expressions of admiration in hyperbole for mediocre leaders, seemingly unconcerned by the dangers mentioned above. 

 

*Dr. Luis Fleischman is Senior Advisor for the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington D.C

The Growing Afghanization in Latin America.

The Growing Afghanization in Latin America.

By Luis Fleischman. *

 

When President Barack Obama was criticized for his over friendly interaction with Hugo Chavez during the Summit of the Americas, he responded by saying that the U.S. has nothing to fear from a country that has an economy six hundred times smaller than ours.

 

             This curious remark by our President brings another logical question to mind: how big is Al Qaeda’s economy in comparison to ours? It is likely that Al Qaeda’s assets are substantially smaller than oil-rich Venezuela’s. Likewise, Iran’s economy is not comparable to the American economy, even in a time of recession and economic crisis.

 

It is then logical to ask whether national or regional security is endangered in relation to economic capability or in an era of asymmetric wars. Does a country or an entity need to be economically or (even militarily) superior to those who oppose it in order to generate a situation of instability and threat?

The Obama Administration knows the right answer. Otherwise, the President and his national security team would not be so aggressively pursuing a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What this Administration most fears in that area of south-central Asia is the collapse of the state in Pakistan and the inability to produce governability in Afghanistan. Both countries are located thousands of miles away from the United States but still the U.S. government recognizes that a situation of anarchy or Taliban rule in both countries would lead to regional instability. That, in turn, could lead to a situation of chaos with the danger that rogue elements could not only posses a nuclear weapon but also could take over in those places where state authority vanishes.

 

Obama’s public relations strategy in Latin America, mostly aimed at opening a new page in U.S.-Latin American relations, is consistent with Bush’s policies. In both the Bush and the Obama Administrations, the leading agency in charge of this policy seems to be the State Department whose philosophy is to try to improve the image of the United States in Latin America in order to mitigate the effect of anti-Americanism in the area. Not confronting Hugo Chavez and his allies appears to be a device aimed at portraying them as the instigators and the U.S. as the civilized and reasonable actor. Obama’s apologetic appearance in Trinidad & Tobago was consistent with this conception. 

 

There are a number of elements missing in that view. In previous issues of the “America’s Report” we have described Chavez’s intentions at revolutionizing the area by supporting anti-establishment groups and candidates like himself across the region.  We also reported that Chavez has designed a new regime based on absolutism and the elimination of civil and political rights while evangelizing these anti-democratic ideas throughout the region. He has built alliances with rogue states on the basis of anti-Americanism while attempting to remove America’s anti-drug and military presence. His wish to eliminate the American sphere of influence and bring other actors such as China, Iran and Russia into play is more than evident. However, there is one aspect not previously mentioned which deserves more attention, especially for U.S. foreign policy makers; that is the spread of anarchy at the expense of state authority.

 

A case in point is the Clinton Administration’s introduction of Plan Colombia in order to help Colombia fight the drug cartels and the FARC which by then had taken over forty (40) percent of Colombian territory. At that time, dangerous non-state actors took over this large portion of a democratic state in the Western Hemisphere. It is because of the hard work of President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia that this situation has been largely reversed.  In Venezuela and other countries allied with Chavez, not only are we seeing the consolidation of socialist autocracies but also the proliferation of dangerous non-state actors.

 

Today, Venezuelan airports are being freely used by drug cartels to export drugs to Europe and the U.S.; Chavez and Correa have helped the FARC in the fight against Colombia; Hezbollah cells have increased their fund-raising and other activities in the area with the support of Hugo Chavez; Iran and drug cartels cooperate under the auspices of Chavez; the Maoist Shining Path is reviving its activities in Peru, probably with the help of elements associated with Chavez. In Venezuela Hezbollah and other Islamists are empowered by the regime while Chavez, himself, has made chaos into official policy.

 

It has been reported that 454 leaders of independent unions have been murdered by parallel official “union” mercenaries.  It was also reported that the union leader representing the Toyota workers was murdered after reaching a deal with the Japanese company. The government did not like the deal because an official union leader was able to negotiate a peaceful resolution to a labor conflict. These mercenaries are allegedly criminals recruited in the prisons by the Chavez government. Criminality has already taken on a life of its own which would be difficult to control even if Chavez were no longer president. High-level criminality could serve drug cartels and radical Islamist groups like Hezbollah, or the FARC. More and more potential seditious, underground and criminal groups are encouraged as these Chavez-type regimes advance in the region. 

 

In other words, the monsters fed by the Chavista alliance now have a life of their own and are likely to survive even after their sponsors are gone.

 

That being the case, what will be the situation in Latin America?  Perhaps, it could mean that Colombia’s anarchical syndrome of the 1980’s and 1990’s will expand further. In other words, a situation similar to Afghanistan and Pakistan is likely to become omnipresent and irreversible. If in Afghanistan and Pakistan the danger is coming from the Taliban, Al Qaeda, the warlords and other non-state powerful actors, what makes us think that in Latin America we will be able to control a similar coalition of the drug cartels, the FARC, Hezbollah and the free criminals of the Chavez regime?

 

Curiously enough, President Woodrow Wilson was very concerned about developments in Mexico during the Mexican revolution early in the 20^th century. Order and stability in Mexico were crucial to U.S. policy makers. Wilson and other U.S. administrations supported regional stability. Today, the challenge is even more serious as drug cartels and terrorist groups are far more sophisticated. Latin American countries seem to be apathetic to this possible development or may be they expect some other country to come to their rescue.    

 

The Organization of American States (OAS) whose president is Miguel Insulza has looked the other way while these developments have taken place. The OAS not only has ignored Chavez’s aggression towards their neighbors but it has also ignored assaults on democracy. As the example of Chavez shows us, the collapse of democracy leads not only to authoritarianism but also to chaos and criminalization of society.

 

Latin American leaders, aren’t you concerned?  The advance of drug cartels, terrorist groups and criminality at the expense of state authority is, in the minds of the OAS leaders, only an American problem. They appear to be more concerned about America attempting to somehow influence them than about the dangers coming from the elements mentioned above. This is why they were delighted by Obama’s “different approach”, as if the U.S. is really their problem.  To the contrary, it is in their collective interest to work with the United States against this phenomenon while there is still a chance to do so peacefully.

 

* Dr. Luis Fleischman is a senior advisor to the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington DC.

 

Ollanta Humala: Peru’s worst nightmare.

Ollanta Humala: Peru’s worst nightmare.

By Nicole M. Ferrand. *

 

The Peruvian presidential elections, to be held in 2011, will be very important for the future of that country.  The two candidates that are in first and second places in the polls are conservative Keiko Fujimori, daughter of former President Alberto Fujimori running for “Fuerza 2011,” and leftist radical, leader of the “Nationalist Party,” Ollanta Humala Tasso.  Humala Tasso’s candidacy has been plagued by accusations that he is an extremist, that he has murdered and tortured police officers and that he is being financed by Hugo Chávez. He has been accused of having an extremely close relationship with Chavez and with the Venezuelan funded ALBA houses.

 

Ollanta Humala became the leader of the “Partido Nacionalista Peruano” (the Peruvian Nationalist Party) and ran for the presidency in 2006 on the Union por el Peru (UPP) ticket,[1] but fortunately lost in a runoff to current President Alan García when the population became fearful of his Chavista connections. 

---

[1] Ibid. 

Now he plans to run in the upcoming elections and has been trying to convince voters that he has distanced himself from the Venezuelan leader.

 

Humala Tasso is the son of Isaac Humala, an ethnic indigenous lawyer, member of the Communist Party of Peru, and ideological leader of the “Etnocacerista movement.”[1] He is also brother of Antauro Humala, former member of the military who is now in jail for participating with Ollanta in an uprising in Andahuaylas where they attacked a police station during the Fujimori regime and allegedly tortured and killed several police officers in the year, 2000. During this revolt, some 150 former soldiers were reported to have been in a convoy attempting to join up with Humala to overthrow the government. In the aftermath, the Army sent hundreds of soldiers to capture this group but Humala and his men managed to hide until President Fujimori was impeached from office and Valentín Paniagua was named interim president. Later Humala was pardoned by Congress and allowed to return to military duty. He was sent as military attaché to Paris, then to Seoul until December 2004, when he was forcibly retired.[2] Antauro was arrested but still was a candidate for congress in the April 2006 elections.

---

[1] Justin Vogler (April 11, 2006). “Ollanta Humala: Peru’s next President?” Upsidedownworld.

[2] “Historia de Ollanta.” November 1, 2000 BBC Mundo.  (Spanish).

On March 17, 2006 Humala’s campaign came under attack as his father said, “If I was President, I would grant amnesty to Shining Path terrorist, Abimael Guzmán and the other incarcerated members of his group”. He made similar statements about amnesty for Víctor Polay, the leader of the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, and other leaders of the MRTA.[1]

 

When Ollanta Humala lost the election to Alan García, there was great relief in the region, especially in Washington, as the prospect of another country falling under Hugo Chavez’s influence seemed to disappear. However, as time passes and candidates intensify their electoral campaigns, the menace of Ollanta Humala looms once again.

 

Even though the allegations of an alliance with Hugo Chavez have been strongly denied by Humala Tasso and the Venezuelan President, there is mounting evidence to the contrary. During the “Nacionalista” campaign of 2005-2006, there was intelligence information that Chávez was sending money to Humala via suitcases through Bolivia, not only to finance his political aspirations, but also to create unrest and chaos in Perú. Indeed, efforts were made to block and close main avenues, to sponsor massive and violent protests in an attempt to destabilize the Toledo regime, as well as to promote a coup to place Humala and his nationalist party in power. In addition, Humala traveled several times to Caracas to meet with Chavez.

 

            For some time now, Peruvians have been outraged at Chavez, Bolivian President, Evo Morales and Humala for illegally using their territory to establish the infamous “Houses of Alba.” The Alba Houses are being used to promote the Chavista agenda inside Peru and are seen by them as the engines for revolutionary change in the 21st century. Unlike the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), who have attacked the institutions of Colombia's democracy from their bases in the mountains for the last 40 years, the ALBA houses are right in the middle of cities and towns. Their activists undermine democracy from within (as Chavez and Morales have already demonstrated) by taking power through democratic elections and then methodically changing laws to subvert it.”[2]

 

As Andrés Oppenheimer accurately points out in an interview with the Peruvian newspaper, El Comercio: “On the surface, the ALBA houses appear to be simply benevolent local associations offering literacy programs and delivering health care with Chavez-paid, Castro-supplied Cuban doctors. Local Peruvian Chavistas who operate the ALBA houses claim that they are merely engaged in charity work and point to the 5,000 impoverished Peruvians they have sent to Venezuela for eye surgery. What the ALBA house landlords fail to mention is that, at the same time, they are indoctrinating poor, mostly young Peruvians in the ideology of the extreme left and terrorism. The Cuban doctors frequently operate as Cuban intelligence officers. Although the Chavez government insists that it is not supporting the ALBA houses, Peruvian officials have said that Chavez's financial support for the houses is being funneled through Bolivia. In the Bolivian capital of La Paz, Chavistas are building a large “Bolivarian Common Embassy.” There they have assembled a group of young Peruvians from the main cities in the south (Cuzco, Puno, and Tacna) to receive indoctrination and military training.”[3]

 

In reality, the intended purpose of these “houses” in Perú is to create a support system for the potential presidency of Ollanta Humala, and to help him advance Chavez’s totalitarian policies by force. Just to be clear of whom is in charge and to whom they are to pledge allegiance; there are pictures of Hugo Chávez all over the ALBA centers together with massive information on “the benefits of the Bolivarian Revolution.” ALBA workers prey on the needy and offer them free eye treatments in Venezuela and Cuba in exchange for their loyalty to the Chavista Revolution and to Ollanta Humala. They are told to vote for the leftist candidate, convince their friends and family to do so in order for them to receive the aid they need. Many of the people that underwent eye surgery were later found participating in violent protests led by Humala.

 

The people joining the Chavez – Alba project are being trained to silence critics and to ultimately take over national and international property to promote and solidify the Bolivarian Revolution. In summary, these are centers of indoctrination for future Chavistas.

 

Not only is money being sent through suitcases. There are individual couriers that illegally enter Peru with cash to be funneled to the ALBA centers, to the Venezuelan embassy in Lima and to Humala, himself. Moreover, the local newspaper, Correo, has obtained information about the bank accounts of Nadine Heredia Alarcón, Humala Tasso’s wife. This would seem to prove that Chavez is not only invested in preparing a grassroots movement to carry out his plans through the ALBA project, but that he is preparing the leadership to implement his plans in Perú.  According to financial statements, Mrs. Humala has received regular payments from two well - known Venezuelan businesses with ties to the Chávez government.

 

Heredia alleges that the bank transfers she has received (reportedly amounting to $500,000 in less than a year) are actually her professional fees as a communications consultant for some companies based in Venezuela. However, many locals are convinced that Heredia is trying to hide the fact that her husband's party (PNP) would be receiving Chavista funds from Venezuela to finance his presidential campaign and aid the ALBA houses.

 

The Government’s reaction

In early May, the Peruvian Congress voted unanimously to investigate the functions, organization and financing of the ALBA houses to determine whether Chavez is using his oil riches to expand his political movement into Peru. The motion was presented by the Congress’ National Defense Commission and approved 96-0. The investigative commission then issued a statement giving the Justice System the authority to close the ALBA centers. This commission found that these centers were in fact centers of propaganda for Chavez’s socialist revolution. Congress members are currently developing a legal mechanism to prevent international aid from infiltrating local politics.

 

The Commission that investigated Chavez’s meddling through these “social” centers, revealed disturbing information about the awful conditions of the eye surgeries offered by ALBA under the project name “Operación Milagro” (Operation Miracle[4]). Operation Miracle operates in many countries in Latin America, the Caribbean and in Africa. The allegations are that the doctors performing the surgeries are intelligence agents for the Cuban and Venezuelan governments that are there to indoctrinate people. Other accusations are that they enter the country illegally through neighboring countries or using fake documentation and smuggle with them revolutionary propaganda and money to fund social unrest. The so-called “doctors” also come with a literacy campaign to “teach people to read and write,” when actually this is material used for training purposes.

 

The Government on Humala

The Peruvian government is also investigating Ollanta Humala and his wife. According to a local bank, “Banco de Crédito del Peru,” Nadine Heredia de Humala has been receiving monetary transfers from two Venezuelan companies: “The Daily Journal,” a local English language newspaper that has been out of circulation since November of last year, and “Venezolana de Valores” (Veneval) which offers custody, compensation and liquidation of securities in the Venezuelan market.

 

According to an ongoing investigation into these transfers, Mrs. Humala receives $4,000 every month from the Daily and $11,000 from Veneval. The problem is that she is supposed to serve as a correspondent, even though she has never published an article. When questioned, the representative from the Daily said that they sometimes don’t publish all the articles. Mrs. Humala must have negotiated an extremely good deal if she is getting paid for doing nothing.  When asked about how Mrs. Humala was receiving her salary in dollars when the Venezuelan government has strict control over U.S. currency, Mr. Lopez responded by saying that the Daily has accounts in several countries and from there they send the transfers. He then said he would only respond by e-mail but never got back to answer more questions.

 

Suspicions about the Humala’s began when Heredia de Humala used an alleged “contract” with the journalistic entity to obtain a mortgage of $100,000, which was approved by the financial institution (BCP). With this money, she bought a $160,000 house in the district of San Borja two years ago.

 

The president of the board of the Daily, Julio Augusto López Enríquez, born to Peruvian parents, together with other Venezuelan investors, bought the newspaper on March 1, 2006, five weeks before the 2006 Peruvian general elections. It has been reported that the business partners paid U$1,000,000 for the company. Mr. López traveled to Peru in 2006 and openly supported then-candidate, Ollanta Humala.

 

In Caracas it is well known that Mr. Enríquez is a prominent member of the so-called “bolibourgeoisie,” which include the people that illegally became rich with Chavez. Venezuelan journalists have revealed that López is a businessman that has enterprises with Chavista members of the military from where he obtained millionaire contracts and that’s where his fortune comes from. His main “partners” are retired general Jorge Luis García Carneiro, former minister and current mayor of the state of Vargas, who was crucial in Chavez’s return to the presidency in April 2002 when he was temporarily ousted and General Clíver Alcalá Cordones, commander of the district of Valencia, Carabobo. 

 

What has many Peruvians outraged is that in addition to being so closely associated with Chavez, it has been revealed that Mrs. Humala has a close relationship and is on the payroll of General Carlos Indacochea, part of Vladimiro Montesinos’[5] corruption ring. Indacochea’s company in Arequipa, Apoyo Total S.A., that has paid Nadine Heredia U$5,555 per month since June 2, 2007 is run by Mariela Indacochea, the former general’s sister. According to public registry records, Mariela is the person responsible for representing her brother Carlos, now an ex-felon, in all “legal, judicial, political and police matters.” It was also discovered that several family members of the Humala’s have “donated” huge amounts of cash to the campaign. The question is since they have no sources of income, where are they getting the money? Is it being sent from Venezuela to them through illegal accounts or personally through emissaries?

 

The Peruvian Congress is taking action to investigate the Humala’s funding, which could be illegal under Peruvian law and raises questions about where their money is coming from.

 

Nadine Heredia has decided not to respond saying that it is private money and that the government should investigate the current first lady’s finances, Mrs. Pilar Nores de Garcia, because she manages public funds. When asked about evidence, Mrs. Humala became upset and said she was being politically persecuted.

 

It is extremely important for the Humala’s to reveal who finances their political campaign especially if the “Nacionalista” wants to become president and she, first lady. Nobody is saying that the Humala’s cannot be gainfully employed, but it is awfully suspicious that their bank accounts have grown exponentially and that most of the funds are coming from Venezuela, from a Journal that doesn’t even circulate. The population seems to understand Ollanta Humala’s agenda since the polls reveal he is losing support. The Peruvian government’s reaction has been well received and hopefully they will find more evidence to set the record straight once and for all on Mr. Humala and his plans for Peru. It is also important to understand exactly how the money is getting from Chavez to Mrs. Humala and the ALBA houses. Why not answer the questions if there is nothing to hide?

 

*Nicole M. Ferrand is a research analyst and editor of "The Americas Report" of the Menges Hemispheric Security Project. She is a graduate of Columbia University in Economics and Political Science with a background in Law from Peruvian University, UNIFE and in Corporate Finance from Georgetown University.

---

[1] “Antauro Humala dice que su hermano es Capitan Carlos.” February 6, 2006 El Universal (Spanish).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Andres Oppenheimer, "Alan García, Chávez y las casas del ALBA," El Comercio, March 18, 2008.

[4] Operación Milagro (Operation Miracle) is a joint health program between Cuba and Venezuela, set up in 2005. Many critics insist that the level of Cuban medical qualifications is very low and in reality, they are "political agents" who have come to Venezuela to indoctrinate the workforce. Opposition supporters in Venezuela have called Cuban doctors “Fidel's ambassadors.” Two defected doctors have claimed that they were told their job was to keep Chavez in power, by asking patients to vote for Chávez in the 2004 recall referendum. Operation Miracle currently operates in Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Uruguay, Mali, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, the Grenadines, Suriname and Angola.

[5] Vladimiro Montesinos was long-standing head of Peru’s Intelligence Service, Servicio de Inteligencia Nacional (SIN), under President Alberto Fujimori. In 2000, secret videos were televised revealing him bribing an elected congressman to leave the opposition and join the Fujimorista side of Congress; the ensuing scandal caused Montesinos to flee the country, hastening the resignation of Fujimori.

Banking 101 with Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Banking 101 with Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

By Nicholas Hanlon*

The leaders of Iran and Venezuela have created an impressive network of trade and international influence with which they openly oppose the United States.  Whether the funding goes to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Hezbollah, the purchase of Latin American politicians, or the further consolidation of Chavez’s power at home, this mobilization of strategic advantage has reached a global status in international finance.  The anti-free-trade bloc, known as ALBA, and the new oil consortiums with Russia and Iran are symptomatic of a rising alternative economic system where there are no checks on tyranny.  Now, in the same month when the U.S. Treasury named six New York based Iranian front companies who move money for the proliferation of sanctioned weapons technology to Iran’s nuclear program, Venezuela and Iran have inaugurated a joint bank to fund development projects.  These projects benefit Iran and Venezuela as they jockey petrol dollars and, if needed, subsidize them with profits from organized crime, cocaine traffic, and other forms of illicit trade all while oppressing civil liberties.  Hugo Chavez hopes to create similar joint development banks with Syria and Qatar.

The Americas Report has chronicled how these unchecked advances will lead to the ability of foreign powers to leverage U.S. foreign policy in ways never imagined.  This past month, and even this past year, has demonstrated that our ability to slow or handicap Iran’s circumvention of sanctions is instructive but insufficient.  Hence, funding for the Iranian-Venezuelan agenda will become increasingly autonomous from the international finance system.  This means that despite the drop in oil consumption and declining prices, the overt intentions of both the Islamic Revolution and the Bolivarian Revolution are now more inter-connected.  Counter terrorism analysts and U.S. foreign policy makers must use the rhetoric of these revolutions as context for the formation of their own strategies.

 

On April 3^rd, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated ‘The Iran-Venezuela Joint Bank.”  Each country has put up their own half of an initial capital base of 200 million dollars, which they plan to raise to 1.2 billion.  The new bank is the offspring of The Export Development Bank of Iran.  Known in Venezuela as the Banco Internacional de Desarrollo, this Iranian institution is under sanctions from both the U.S. Treasury and the international community for its alleged involvement in Iran’s nuclear program.  Chavez and Ahmadinejad must find new ways to finance Iran’s nuclear program among other suspect programs because sanctions are having some effect.  Ultimately, they prefer a completely new and alternative way to fund their endeavors.  The joint bank marks another historical step in the geo-strategic repositioning of the United States’ enemies in their alliance against the West.  With each bit of influence that Chavez buys in Central and South America with Venezuelan petrodollars, Iran either takes a cut in terms of assets, influence, or increased operational capabilities.  The joint bank will add to the perception of legitimacy in Chavez’s financial transactions.   

 

On April 7, 2009 the U.S. Department of the Treasury named a “Chinese individual and six Iranian entities under Executive Order 13382 for their connection to Iran's missile proliferation network.  Additionally, Treasury identified eight aliases used by E.O. 13382 designee LIMMT Economic and Trade Company, Ltd. ("LIMMT") to circumvent sanctions.  E.O. 13382 is an authority aimed at freezing the assets of weapons of mass destruction proliferators and those who support them.”1  The Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Stuart Levey, appealed to the authority of the Security Council and international obligations to stop the fake companies from procuring “centrifuge and missile technology for Iran.”[i]  The New York County District Attorney's Office filed a criminal indictment against the procurement network on the same day.  In March, the Treasury designated companies associated with Iran’s Bank Melli for the banks part in Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.  The U.S., the E.U., and Australia had already named Bank Melli as a proliferator.  The bank maintained accounts and provided letters of credit and financial services for Iranian front companies who were moving materials for and giving support to sanctioned activities.

 

All of this occurred in the last several months.  Yet, these are almost arbitrary headlines of a thirty-year-old all out overt asymmetrical war against the U.S. and its allies that began in 1979 for Iran and dates back even further for the leftists in Central and South America.  What is new here are the exponential strategic leaps forward that Iran has gained from its alliance with Hugo Chavez.  Douglas Farah summed up the relationship on his blog last year like this;

 

“So, Iran sponsors Hezbollah and allies with Chavez.  Chavez sponsors the FARC and allies with Iran.  The FARC has the dope; Hezbollah has the international distribution network, having been involved in heroin traffic and organized criminal activities for years.

 

What is alarming to me is that, despite Hezbollah’s stated intention to attack the United States and Iran’s evident interest in having the ability to strike at the United States, this alliance (and the Chavez-Iran alliance) attracts very little attention at senior policy levels.”[ii]

 

That lack of attention Farah mentions has continued in the present Administration.  It begs the question; would the leader of the free world have been duped into such photo ops in Trinidad had he been properly briefed on Chavez’s willful facilitation of the FARC and Hezbollah, let alone his dictatorial behavior inside Venezuela?  Such choice propaganda material will undoubtedly reinforce the propaganda machines that power oppressive leftist regimes in Cuba and their aspiring counterparts like Ortega in Nicaragua, the FMLN in El Salvador, and Zelaya in Honduras.  This goes especially for Iran.  One specific example of the benefits of the Iran-Venezuela-Hezbollah network surfaced last June when the Treasury department named a Venezuelan diplomat in Damascus as a Hezbollah fundraiser.  Ghazi Nasr al Din, former Charge d' Affaires at the Venezuelan Embassy in Damascus, gave Hezbollah donors information on bank accounts where the deposits would go directly to Hezbollah.  Adam J. Szubin, Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), had this to say;

 

"It is extremely troubling to see the Government of Venezuela employing and providing safe harbor to Hezbollah facilitators and fundraisers. We will continue to expose the global nature of Hezbollah’s terrorist support network, and we call on responsible governments worldwide to disrupt and dismantle this activity,"[iii]

 

Several analysts have suggested that any threat posed by Chavez will decrease with the price of oil but it appears that he has found ways around this.  Keep in mind that Chavez consolidated power in the electorate with the promise of poverty reduction programs, known as “misiones”, at a time when oil revenue was abundant.  So, when Chavez creates a new development bank with Iran it is good to take a step back and get a snap shot of each countries development projects, accounting, and expenditures. 

 

In the 2008, March/ April edition of Foreign Affairs, the former chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly from 2000 to 2004 analyzed Chavez’s poverty program and presented evidence that there was a negative impact of the “Revolution” that actually hurt the poor of Venezuela the most.  According to Francisco Rodriguez;

 

“Neither official statistics nor independent estimates show any evidence that Chávez has reoriented state priorities to benefit the poor. Most health and human development indicators have shown no significant improvement beyond that which is normal in the midst of an oil boom. Indeed, some have deteriorated worryingly, and official estimates indicate that income inequality has increased. The "Chávez is good for the poor" hypothesis is inconsistent with the facts.”[iv]

 

Rodriguez further explains how Chavez has been able to maintain the perception of success through political maneuvering.  The real lack of success is partly due to corruption and mismanagement, which Rodriguez attributes to the assertion that Chavez’s “Empty Revolution” is no different in practice from his Washington Consensus predecessors.  Yet, where does all that oil money go?  A popular view among regional analysts is that Chavez has staved off dissention in the military ranks by buying toys for his generals.  That is certainly not the only factor that stands between Venezuelan military elites and Chavez’s grasp on power.  However, the price tag on Chavez’s military expenditures explains a lot.

 

Jane’s Defense Weekly reported last November that Venezuela’s Defense Ministry increased its defense spending by 25% for the 2009 budget.  In the years, prior Chavez had amassed a military that defies conventional necessity.  In monetary terms, Ben Miller sums it up in a previous Americas Report as follows;

 

“According to the National Budget Office, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has tripled his country’s defense budget since 2000 to a whopping $3.3 billion in 2008.  Chavez's biggest purchases from Russia came in 2006 when, in that year alone, he signed deals for over $3 billion in weapons.[1] Between 2004 and 2005, Venezuela doubled the value of the major conventional weapons it imported from$13million to $27million.

This number then sky-rocketed to $406 million over the next 12 months, causing Venezuela to surpass other nations such as Argentina, France, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan in the index.[1] The large majority of the weapons it received came directly from Russia.”[v]

 

In terms of hardware this amount of spending on unneeded military expenditures would be scandalous were there true freedom of the press in Venezuela.  Among the hardware are Russian T-72 tanks which military analysts find hard to imagine a use for in the jungle with no outside threat.  Combined with the 50 helicopters in Venezuela’s last order from Russia they do have the hardware to oppress a resistance movement, arm revolutionary terrorists, and to become the dominant military power in the region.  In the end, Chavez’s bills are piling up, he is successfully consolidating his power, and new revenue sources are opening to reinforce an increasingly oppressive regime.       

 

The official statement of the Financial Action Task Force, the primary international body for countering terrorist financing and money laundering, is “that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s lack of comprehensive anti-money laundering / combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime represents a significant vulnerability within the international financial system.”[vi]  Many consider this an understatement and cite the common pet name for Iran in the international finance community as the “central banker of terror.”  There is no place for “anti-money laundering” and “combating the financing of terrorism” when those are the primary means of advancing Iran’s foreign policy.  Iran’s overt government policy to support terrorist organizations is completely consistent with the agenda of the Islamic Revolution and Ahmadinejad’s statements about the new Iran-Venezuela Joint Bank.  Ahmadinejad said of the inauguration, "What happened today represents a strong will to build a new world.” These words may seem typical for the christening of a grand endeavor were they not spoken by a head of state known for envisioning a world without America and the annihilation of Israel. 

 

Hugo Chavez has made many statements outlining his intentions to create an alternative international finance system.  In fact, the new communist trade bloc in the Americas bares the title, "The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas" (ALBA).  Of ALBA, Chavez said, "A new political, economic, and geopolitical map can be perceived in Latin America and the Caribbean."  Like the joint bank with Iran, an aversion to liberal democracy and dictatorial tendencies seem to be the common requirement for membership.  ALBA includes Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, Honduras, Dominica, and Nicaragua.  Therefore, as the revolutionary vision progresses in Latin America and the Caribbean, Hugo Chavez has turned to the Middle East to globalize this anti-capitalist alternative.  He said at the bank inauguration “This is part of a strategy to form a new financial architecture between us”.  Chavez rarely misses an opportunity to denounce capitalism and ridicule the International Monetary Fund.  He described the recent G20 pledge of $1 trillion to the IMF as, “entrusting beef to vultures.”  The assumption being that he and his anti-western counterparts are a trustworthy alternative.   

 

*Nicholas Hanlon is a foreign affairs writer and researcher at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. He is a graduate of Georgia State University and has a BA in Political Science with a concentration in International Affairs and a Minor in French.

---

 

[i] PRESS ROOM Treasury Designates Iranian Proliferation Network and Identifies New Aliases April 7, 2009 tg-84, U.S. Department of the Treasury, http://treas.gov/press/releases/tg84.htm

[ii] Douglas Farah, The Hezbollah-Latin American Ties Become More Evident, Oct 24, 04:17 http://www.douglasfarah.com/?pg=6

[iii] PRESS ROOM Treasury Targets Hizballah in Venezuela June 18, 2008 hp-1036, U.S. Department of the Treasury, http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp1036.htm

[iv] Rodriguez, Francisco, An Empty Revolution, Foreign Affairs March / April 2008

[v] Miller, Ben, The Russian – Venezuelan Strategic Alliance The Americas Report October 6, 2008

[vi] FATF, FATF STATEMENT ON IRAN, Paris, 11 October 2007

 

* Nicholas Hanlon is a foreign affairs writer and researcher at the Center for Security Policy in Washington D. C.