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